Green v. Burl et al

Filing 107

ORDER approving and adopting in their entirety 105 Proposed Findings and Partial Recommended Disposition as this Court's findings in all respects; granting Medical Defendants' 84 and 90 motions for summary judgment; granting in part and denying in part 69 ADC Defendants' motion for summary judgment; awarding Benton, Mabry, Burl, Fitzgerald, Jensen, and Stout summary judgment and dismissing without prejudice Green's claim(s) against them; limiting Green's claim s against Davis to the incident described in MX-MX-16-02247; limiting Green's claims against Clark to the incidents described in MX-16-02208 and MX-16-02247; limiting Green's claims against Miller to the incident described in MX-16-02248; l imiting Green's claims against Burns to the incidents described in MX-16-02248 and MX-16-02208; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal taken from the order adopting this recommendation is considered frivolous and not in good faith. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 6/15/2018. (ljb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
RICKIE GREEN, ADC #117055
v.

PLAINTIFF

No: 5:17CV00074 JLH-PSH

DANNY BURL, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Partial Recommended Disposition
submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris, and the objections filed. After
carefully considering the objections and making a de novo review of the record in this case, the
Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Partial Recommended Disposition should be, and
hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.

The Medical Defendants’ motions for summary judgment are granted, and the ADC

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.
2.

Benton, Mabry, Burl, Fitzgerald, Jensen, and Stout are awarded summary judgment

and Green’s claim(s) against them are dismissed without prejudice.
3.

Green’s claims against Davis are limited to the incident described in MX-MX-16-

4.

Green’s claims against Clark are limited to the incidents described in MX-16-02208

02247.

and MX-16-02247.
5.
02248.

Green’s claims against Miller are limited to the incident described in MX-16-

6.

Green’s claims against Burns are limited to the incidents described in MX-16-

02248 and MX-16-02208.
7.

The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal taken from the order adopting

this recommendation is considered frivolous and not in good faith.
DATED this 15th day of June, 2018.

________________________________
J. LEON HOLMES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE