From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davis v. Payne

United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas
Jun 8, 2021
4:20-cv-00336 JM-PSH (E.D. Ark. Jun. 8, 2021)

Opinion

4:20-cv-00336 JM-PSH

06-08-2021

CARL DAVIS JR. ADC #80431 PLAINTIFF v. DEXTER PAYNE, et al. DEFENDANTS


ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Partial Recommendation submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris, and the objections filed. Mr. Payne asks the Court to grant a stay of his case so that he may properly exhaust his state remedies. However, the Court of Appeal of the Eighth Circuit has made it clear that “[i]f exhaustion was not completed at the time of filing, dismissal is mandatory.” Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003) After carefully considering the objections and making a de novo review of the record in this case, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Partial Recommendation should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

(1) Davis' claim that Jason Kelley failed to take corrective action after Davis submitted Grievance VU-16-01051 in October 2016, is dismissed with prejudice as time-barred;

(2) Davis' claims regarding treatment provided by Dr. Steven String fellow on October 4, 2016, and February 28, 2017, are dismissed with prejudice as time-barred;

(3) Davis' claims against Dexter Payne are dismissed without prejudice due to Davis' failure to exhaust available administrative remedies;

(4) Davis' claims against Warden James Shipman are dismissed without prejudice due to Davis' failure to exhaust available administrative remedies;

(5) Davis' claim that Jason Kelley failed to take corrective action in July 2017 are dismissed without prejudice due to Davis' failure to exhaust available administrative remedies;

(6) Davis' claims against Sondra Parker are dismissed without prejudice due to Davis' failure to exhaust available administrative remedies;

(7) Davis' claims against Lisa Smith are dismissed without prejudice due to Davis' failure to exhaust available administrative remedies;

(8) Davis' claims against Dr. Shannon Wright Clark are limited to the treatment provided by her on July 12 and 17, 2018, as described in VU-18-000412 and VU-18-00529; and

(9) Davis' claims against Cortney Miller are limited to the treatment provided by Miller on September 11, 2018, as described in VU-18-00529.


Summaries of

Davis v. Payne

United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas
Jun 8, 2021
4:20-cv-00336 JM-PSH (E.D. Ark. Jun. 8, 2021)
Case details for

Davis v. Payne

Case Details

Full title:CARL DAVIS JR. ADC #80431 PLAINTIFF v. DEXTER PAYNE, et al. DEFENDANTS

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas

Date published: Jun 8, 2021

Citations

4:20-cv-00336 JM-PSH (E.D. Ark. Jun. 8, 2021)