Swaim v. Bland et al

Filing 50

ORDER approving and adopting the 46 Recommendation; granting in part 22 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff's federal claims against Bland and Esaw; declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction ove r the remaining claims and dismissing them without prejudice now that all of Plaintiff's federal claims have been disposed; Plaintiff's remaining miscellaneous claims are more appropriately resolved in state court; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 9/19/2017. (cmn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
JAMES SWAIM, ADC #131028
VS.

PLAINTIFF
5:16-CV-00131-BRW-JTR

ESTELLA BLAND, APN; and
ANNETTE ESAW, Administrative Assistant,
Correct Care Solutions, Inc.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
I have reviewed the Recommendation submitted by United States Magistrate Judge J.
Thomas Ray and the filed objections.1 After considering these documents and making a de novo
review of the record in this case, I approve and adopt the Recommendation as set out below:
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART.2 Plaintiff's federal
claims against Bland and Esaw are DISMISSED with prejudice.
Plaintiff's remaining miscellaneous claims are more appropriately resolved in state court.
Now that all of his federal claims have been disposed, I decline to exercise pendent jurisdiction
over the remaining claims, and they are DISMISSED without prejudice. 3
I certify that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good
faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of September, 2017.
/s/ Billy Roy Wilson______
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Doc. Nos. 46, 49.

2

Doc. No. 22.

3

See Johnson v. City of Shorewood, 360 F.3d 810, 819 (8th Cir. 2004) (“The Supreme
Court has noted in the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the
balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine. . . will point toward
declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.”) (internal quotation and
citation omitted).