Meadows v. Richarson et al, No. 1:2017cv00056 - Document 15 (E.D. Ark. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 12 and 14 Proposed Findings and Recommendations. Plaintiff is allowed to proceed on her excessive force claims, and her related claims regarding treatment of those injuries, against Defendants Richarson, Ward, Huges, Baisa, Bl edsoe, and Bummgartener. Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim regarding treatment of her hepatitis C is dismissed from this action without prejudice. Defendants Correct Care Solutions and Does are dismissed from this action without prejudi ce. Plaintiff's 9 Motion for Injunctive Relief is denied. The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge James M. Moody Jr. on 10/23/2017. (mcz) (Docket text modified on 10/23/2017 to correct the description of the document filed)(jak)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Meadows v. Richarson et al Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION TERESE MARIE MEADOWS ADC #707979 v. PLAINTIFF 1:17CV00056-JM-JJV MICHAEL RICHARSON, Captain of Security, McPherson Unit; et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Partial Recommended Dispositions submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (ECF Nos. 12 and 14). No objections have been filed. After careful consideration, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Partial Recommended Dispositions should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff is allowed to proceed on her excessive force claims, and her related claims regarding treatment of those injuries, against Defendants Richarson, Ward, Huges, Baisa, Bledsoe, and Bummgartener. 2. Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim regarding treatment of her hepatitis C is DISMISSED from this action without prejudice. 3. Defendants Correct Care Solutions and Does are DISMISSED from this action without prejudice. 4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 9) is DENIED. 5. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order adopting the recommendations would not be taken in good faith. 1 Dockets.Justia.com DATED this 23rd day of October, 2017. _______________________________________ JAMES M. MOODY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
