Earls v. Stringfellow, 5:17-cv-91-DPM. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20180822781
Visitors: 27
Filed: Aug. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 21, 2018
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, JR. , District Judge . On de nova review, the Court adopts the recommendation, NQ 50, as corrected and mostly overrules Earls's objections, N o 51. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). The correction: page ten of the recommendation should refer to Dr. Stringfellow, not Dr. Strickland. The delay in treatment that Earl experienced is regrettable and unfortunate; but Brown and Strickland weren't deliberately indifferent within the meaning of the law. Their respective motio
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, JR. , District Judge . On de nova review, the Court adopts the recommendation, NQ 50, as corrected and mostly overrules Earls's objections, N o 51. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). The correction: page ten of the recommendation should refer to Dr. Stringfellow, not Dr. Strickland. The delay in treatment that Earl experienced is regrettable and unfortunate; but Brown and Strickland weren't deliberately indifferent within the meaning of the law. Their respective motion..
More
ORDER
D.P. MARSHALL, JR., District Judge.
On de nova review, the Court adopts the recommendation, NQ 50, as corrected and mostly overrules Earls's objections, No 51. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). The correction: page ten of the recommendation should refer to Dr. Stringfellow, not Dr. Strickland. The delay in treatment that Earl experienced is regrettable and unfortunate; but Brown and Strickland weren't deliberately indifferent within the meaning of the law. Their respective motions for summary judgment, No 25 & No 34, are therefore granted. Earls's claims against them will be dismissed with prejudice.
So Ordered.
Source: Leagle
