Winston v. Clowers et al

Filing 75

ORDER adopting 62 Partial Report and Recommendations. Mr. Watson's 42 Motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order is denied. Correct Care Solutions, LLC's 43 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted; th e defendants' 47 Motion to Sever is granted; Defendants Griswold, Stratton, King, Clowers, Capps, Scroggins and Stieve are dismissed without prejudice from this action. Mr. Winston's 53 Motion to voluntarily dismiss defendant King is granted. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 8/24/2017. (mcz)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
CHARLES A. WINSTON
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 5:16-cv-252-KGB-PSH

CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS LLC, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
The Court has received and reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendation
(“Recommendation”) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Patricia Harris (Dkt. No. 62).
Plaintiff Charles A. Winston has filed an objection to the Recommendation (Dkt. No. 64). After
careful consideration of the Recommendation, Mr. Winston’s timely objections, and a de novo
review of the record, the Court concludes that the Recommendation should be, and hereby is,
approved and adopted in its entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects.
The Court writes separately to address Mr. Winston’s objections. Mr. Winston takes issue
with the recommendation that defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted. Mr.
Winston states that he properly amended his complaint and thus argues that he corrected the
omission of Correct Care, LLC, from the complaint. However, Judge Harris denied Mr. Winston’s
motions to amend on the ground that “both motions to amend/correct deal with issues unrelated to
Winston’s imminent danger claim.” (Dkt. No. 63, at 1). Judge Harris reasoned that, “[i]n the first
motion to amend/correct, Winston alleges Correct Care Solutions (“CCS”) has a policy of taking
away prescriptions, including prescriptions for canes and orthopedic shoes, and in his second
motion to amend/correct Winston seeks to add a state law claim for medical malpractice.” (Id., at
n. 1). This Court agrees that, even if timely and proper, Mr. Winston’s motions to amend do not

relate to any claim of imminent danger.

Therefore, the Court adopts Judge Harris’s

Recommendation.
Mr. Winston next contends that Judge Harris erred in recommending the severance of nonimminent danger claims/parties. Mr. Winston argues that the defendants presented false and
misleading information to the Court. Mr. Winston proceeds to provide information about various
medical providers involved in this action. This Court is unclear as to whether Mr. Winston presents
new information or restates information already before Judge Harris when she made her
determination. Regardless, given the nature of Mr. Winston’s claims, Judge Harris did not err in
recommending the severance of non-imminent danger claims/parties.

The information Mr.

Winston presents, even if new information, does not change that analysis. This Court adopts the
Recommendation.
It is therefore ordered that:
1.

Mr. Winston’s motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order is
denied (Dkt. No. 42).

2. Correct Care Solutions, LLC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted (Dkt.
No. 43).
3. The defendants’ motion to sever is granted (Dkt. No. 47).
4.

Defendants Griswold, Stratton, King, Clowers, Capps, Scroggins, and Stieve are
hereby dismissed without prejudice as defendants from this action.

5.

Mr. Winston’s motion to voluntarily dismiss defendant King is granted (Dkt. No. 53).

2

So ordered this 24th day of August, 2017.

____________________________________
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge

3