Opinion
No. 3:20-cv-160-DPM-JJV
03-24-2021
STEVEN HASTINGS ADC #171672 PLAINTIFF v. ALEC J. WILBUR, Corrections Sergeant, North Central Unit, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
1. On de novo review, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Volpe's partial recommendation, Doc. 224, and overrules Hastings's objections, Doc. 247. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). Hastings's second motion for preliminary injunctive relief, Doc. 172, is denied. Further, Magistrate Judge Volpe didn't clearly err or misapply the law in denying a hearing on the motion. Hastings's appeal on that point, Doc. 265, is therefore denied. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a).
2. Hastings's other appeals are also denied. Doc. 220, 264, 266 & 268. Hastings's proposed amendment and attached grievances, Doc. 199, included claims that arose or were not exhausted until after Hastings filed this case in June of 2020. His motion for order, Doc. 235, requested various types of injunctive relief without alleging that irreparable harm was likely without immediate relief. As for the renewed request for a mental health examination, Doc. 245, the Court may appoint an expert only under compelling circumstances. U.S. Marshals Service v. Means, 741 F.2d 1053, 1059 (8th Cir. 1984). And though Hastings now suggests that his Medicare insurance might cover the examination, Doc. 266, he hasn't shown that coverage is actually available for an examination done to aid litigation. Finally, Hastings's motion to compel, Doc. 239-1, sought to have the medical and mental health Defendants "send copies of all records the[y] have" about Hastings. That request is overly broad. Magistrate Judge Volpe didn't clearly err or misapply the law in denying any of these motions. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a).
So Ordered.
/s/_________
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
24 March 2021