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 United States District Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. 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 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 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:
Plaintiff, Marcus Edward Shelton, filed this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Per his Complaint (Doc. No. 2), he alleges that Defendant Connie Hubbard exhibited deliberate indifference toward his serious medical needs. Defendant Hubbard filed a Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion") (Doc. No. 14) seeking dismissal of all claims against her. Plaintiff has not filed a response and the Motion is ripe for disposition.
Plaintiff alleges that on or about September 11, 2013, he was prescribed a pain pill to which he had an allergic reaction that caused an "outbreak" across his body (Doc. No. 2 at 4). Plaintiff alleges it took unspecified medical staff an hour and a half to provide him with medication for the reaction (Doc. No. 2 at 4). As a result of his allergic reaction, Plaintiff contends he now suffers regular dizzy spells ( Id. ).
For her part, Defendant Hubbard states that Plaintiff's initial jail screening form dated April 23, 2013, identified no allergies to medication (Doc. No. 16 ¶ 3). She also states the medication - Naproxen - was prescribed to alleviate Plaintiff's lower back pain ( Id. ¶ 5-6). Defendant Hubbard offers medical records indicating Plaintiff began complaining of itching and rashes shortly after taking Naproxen for the first time (Doc. No. 16-1 at 8). Those records indicate a physician was contacted and an antihistamine injection was ordered ...