McReynolds v. Glenn et al
ORDER denying 49 Motion for Reconsideration filed by Bobby Franklin McReynolds. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on April 6, 2017. (mll)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
BOBBY FRANKLIN MCREYNOLDS
Civil No. 4:16-cv-04122
PRESTON GLENN, Jail
Administrator, Nevada County Jail;
And CHRISTOPHER WATTINGNY,
Doctor, Wadley Medical Center
Plaintiff Bobby Franklin McReynolds proceeds pro se in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 49) of this Court’s Order
denying Plaintiff’s request for examination by a medical specialist. ECF No. 47.
In his Motion for Reconsideration Plaintiff argues he filed an Objection (ECF No. 48) to
Defendant Wadley Regional Medical Center‘s (“WRMC”) response to his motion for a specialist
and this Court ruled on his motion without considering his objection. ECF No. 49. Plaintiff’s
Objection reasserts his reasons for requesting an examination by a medical specialist and states
“the two medical experts are being sued in this civil action & are a “conflict of interest” at any
examatory level in this action.” ECF No. 48.
As previously stated in the Court’s Order denying Plaintiff’s request for examination by a
medical specialist (ECF No. 47), this case is in the early stages of litigation. One of the defendants
Plaintiff alleges denied him adequate medical care has not yet been served and a motion to dismiss
(ECF No. 38) filed by Defendant WRMC is currently pending. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion
for Reconsideration (ECF No. 49) is DENIED.
Plaintiff may refile his request for examination by a medical specialist after all defendants
have been served and all motions to dismiss are addressed by the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of April 2017.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?