United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS INSTRUCTIONS
JOE J. VOLPE, Magistrate Judge.
The following recommended disposition has been sent to Chief United States District Judge Brian S. Miller. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in a waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.
If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a new hearing for this purpose before either the District Judge or Magistrate Judge, you must, at the time you file your written objections, include the following:
1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.
2. Why the evidence to be proffered at the new hearing (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.
3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing.
From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing. Mail your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to:
John Wayne Halbrook ("Plaintiff") is an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Correction ("ADC"). He filed this action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants Wendy Kelley and Maria Lane violated his Eighth Amendment rights by exhibiting deliberate indifference toward his serious medical needs. Defendants filed separate Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. Nos. 44, 47) seeking dismissal of all claims against them. Plaintiff responded to Defendant Kelley's Motion (Doc. Nos. 50, 51), but he has not responded to Defendant Lane's Motion within the time allotted by Local Rule 7.2 (b). Accordingly, the Court finds the Motions for Summary Judgment ripe for disposition.
II. UNDISPUTED FACTS
Plaintiff alleges he has hepatitis B and C and that he has received inadequate medical care from defendants for these conditions (Doc. No. 45 ¶ 3). Plaintiff is suing both defendants in their official and personal capacities (Doc. No. 2 at 2).
Defendant Kelley denies that Plaintiff's hepatitis care has been inadequate (Doc. No. 45 ¶ 6-10). She further states she is without medical training and has not provided treatment or been involved in treatment decisions ( Id. ¶ 14). Defendant Lane argues that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative ...