Martin et al v. Corizon Correctional Medical Services et al, No. 5:2013cv00364 - Document 175 (E.D. Ark. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING 113 141 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; denying 102 104 motions for TRO; noting 102 Mr. Martin's change of address; denying 130 motion for summary judgment; denying as moot 146 motion for ruling; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 02/18/2015. (rhm) (Docket text modified on 2/18/2015 to correct a typographical error.) (thd).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Martin et al v. Corizon Correctional Medical Services et al Doc. 175 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION LAWRENCE MARTIN ADC # 106491 v. PLAINTIFF Case No. 5:13-cv-00364 KGB/JJV CORIZON CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Before the Court are two Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. Nos. 113, 141). The Court will address each in turn. First, the Court has has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by Magistrate Judge Volpe that relate to plaintiff Lawrence Martin’s motion for temporary restraining order and motion for order (Dkt. No. 113). The Court also has reviewed Mr. Martin’s objections to the recommendation (Dkt. No. 117). After careful review of the recommendation, Mr. Martin’s objections, and a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommendations should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 113). The Court denies Mr. Martin’s motion for temporary restraining order and motion for order (Dkt. Nos. 102, 104), and Mr. Martin’s change of address is noted (Dkt. No. 102). Next, the Court has reviewed the second Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by Magistrate Judge Volpe that relate to Mr. Martin’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 141). The Court also has reviewed the objections filed by Mr. Martin to that recommendation (Dkt. No. 143). After careful review of the recommendation, Mr. Martin’s objections, and a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings Dockets.Justia.com and Recommendations should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted as this Court’s findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 141). Mr. Martin’s motion for summary judgment is denied (Dkt. No. 130). The Court denies as moot Mr. Martin’s motion for ruling (Dkt. No. 146). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. SO ORDERED this the 18th day of February, 2015. _____________________________ Kristine G. Baker 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.
