Helms v. Sorenson et al
Filing
72
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 71 Report and Recommendation; grants 57 Sorenson and Stouffer's Motion for Summary Judgment; denies 65 Helms' Application for Appointed Counsel; orders that judgment in favor of defendants issue forthwith. Signed by Honorable Lee R. West on 05/24/16. (jy)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MICHAELS. HELMS.
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
No. CIV-14-1003-W
DR. SORENSON and SHIRLEY
STOUFFER,
Defendants.
ORDER
On April 21, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Shon T. Enwin issued his fourth
Report and Recommendation in this matter and addressed the Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by defendants Charles Sorenson, M.D., and Shirley Stouffer, LPN, and the
Application for Appointed Counsel filed by plaintiff Michael S. Helms. Magistrate Judge
Enwin recommended that the Court grant the former and deny the latter.
Although the parties were advised of their right to object to Magistrate Judge Erwin's
proposed findings and recommendations, s^ Doc. 71 at 20, and of the consequences of
their failure to do so, s^ jd. at 21, no objections have been filed within the allotted time.
Upon review of the record, the Court concurs with Magistrate Judge Enwin's
suggested disposition of these two motions and his findings and recommendations
regarding the three counts set forth in Helms' complaint seeking relief under title 42,
section 1983 of the United States Code for deprivation of Helms' rights under the eighth
amendment to the United States Constitution.
Accordingly, the Court
(1) ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 71] issued on April 21, 2016;
(2) GRANTS Sorenson and Stouffer's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 57]filed
on November 20, 2015;
(3) DENIES Helms' Application for Appointed Counsel [Doc. 65] file-stamped
December 8, 2015; and
(4) ORDERS that judgment in favor of the defendants issue forthv^/ith.
ENTERED this
day of May. 2016.
R. WEST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?