Gilliam v. Steffen, 4:19-cv-00740 BSM. (2020)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20200129880
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 28, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 28, 2020
Summary: ORDER BRIAN S. MILLER , District Judge . The proposed findings and recommendations ("RD") from United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe [Doc. No. 5] has been received. After careful review of the record, the RD is adopted. Gilliam's claims against defendant Hodge are dismissed with prejudice. Gilliam's deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim is dismissed without prejudice. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Summary: ORDER BRIAN S. MILLER , District Judge . The proposed findings and recommendations ("RD") from United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe [Doc. No. 5] has been received. After careful review of the record, the RD is adopted. Gilliam's claims against defendant Hodge are dismissed with prejudice. Gilliam's deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim is dismissed without prejudice. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith. ..
More
ORDER
BRIAN S. MILLER, District Judge.
The proposed findings and recommendations ("RD") from United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe [Doc. No. 5] has been received. After careful review of the record, the RD is adopted. Gilliam's claims against defendant Hodge are dismissed with prejudice. Gilliam's deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim is dismissed without prejudice. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
