Hastings v. Wilbur

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

STEVEN HASTINGS ADC #171672 PLAINTIFF

No. 3:20-cv-160-DPM-JJV ALEC J. WILBUR; KIMBERLY BROWN; STEVEN R. PUCKETT; MARVORRIE HALL; JERREMY WILSON; and SHAWN RICHARD DEFENDANTS

ORDER 1. On de novo review, the Court partly adopts and partly declines the Magistrate Judge’s partial recommendation, Doc. 30, and partly overrules and partly sustains Hastings’s objections, Doc. 40. FED. R. CIv. P. 72(b)(3). With one exception, the record doesn’t show that irreparable harm is likely without immediate court action. The exception is Hastings’s diabetes-related allegations about insulin and snacks. The Court returns the motion, Doc. 29, to the Magistrate Judge to develop the record on that issue and provide another recommendation limited to that issue. 2. Hastings’s appeal, Doc. 48, is denied. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a). Magistrate Judge Volpe didn’t clearly err or misapply the law in denying Hastings’s motions for a stress test, for appointed counsel, and

for a hearing. Doc. 15, 41 & 47, Plummer v. Grimes, 87 F.3d 1032, 1033 (8th Cir. 1996). So Ordered.

kPrgqastoll p-. D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge ! Octohnr 2020