Everett v. Richard

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

NORTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER EVERETT

ADC #152664 PLAINTIFF v. No. 3:20-cv-220-DPM-JJ V

SHAWN RICHARD, Mental Health,

ADC; PIERCE, Assistant Warden, ADC; and FAUST, Warden, ADC DEFENDANTS ORDER

1. Everett’s sixth motion to appoint counsel, Doc. 64, is denied for the reasons the previous motions were denied. Doc. 9, 35, 37, 43 & 51. Neither the facts nor the claims are complex enough to warrant appointed counsel; and Everett has ably represented himself in this case. Plummer v. Grimes, 87 F.3d 1032, 1033 (8th Cir. 1996).

2. On de novo review, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Volpe’s recommendation, Doc. 63, and overrules Everett’s objections, Doc. 66. FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Everett hasn’t met proof with proof to show that the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The motions for summary judgment, Doc. 55 & 58, are therefore granted. Everett’s deliberate indifference claims against Richard, Pierce, and Faust will be dismissed with prejudice.

3. Everett’s motion for an examination by an outside psychologist to prove damages, Doc. 65, is denied without prejudice as moot.

So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr.

United States District Judge Al June Aoval