Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_07-cv-00130/USCOURTS-ared-5_07-cv-00130-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

In Plaintiff’s Original Case, he named the following defendants: Arkansas

Department of Correction, Correctional Medical Services Inc., Robert Scott, Dr. Lee,

Nurse Durham, Nurse Wycroft, CNA Bealer, Nurse Alexander, Nurse Hartgrave, and

Nurse Jordan.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

RICKEY C. BROOKS PLAINTIFF

ADC #108335

V. 5:07CV00130 WRW/BD

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Plaintiff Rickey C. Brooks filed a Complaint (docket entry #1) with this Court on

February 16, 2005, Case No. 5:05-cv-00047-WRW-BD, alleging an Eighth Amendment

violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a state law medical negligence claim.1

 On April 12,

2007, the Court entered an order and judgment (#58 and 59) granting Plaintiff’s motion to

dismiss his complaint voluntarily, without prejudice. 

On June 7, 2007, Plaintiff filed this action again alleging a state law medical

negligence claim and an Eighth Amendment claim that his rights were violated by

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. In this lawsuit, Plaintiff named 

Case 5:07-cv-00130-BRW Document 71 Filed 01/07/08 Page 1 of 2
2

In this lawsuit Plaintiff names the following defendants: Arkansas Department of

Correction, CMS, Robert Scott, M.D., Doctor Lee, Rory Griffin, Nurse Durham, Nurse

Wycroft, CNA Bealer, Jan Alexander, Nurse Thomas, Dianna Locklear, Laura McCartyWatterson, Infirmary Manager/Nurse Woodel, Rick Toney, and Randal Manus.

2

several defendants, including some defendants who were not named in the original case.2

The Court previously dismissed the following as Defendants in this matter: the Arkansas

Department of Correction, CMS, Rick Toney, Randall Manus, Dianna Locklear and

Laura Mc-Carty-Watterson. Plaintiff now has filed a Motion to Dismiss (#70) seeking to

dismiss his Complaint. In the motion, Plaintiff states that he no longer desires to litigate

this case. 

For good cause, Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (#70) is GRANTED. The case is

DISMISSED with prejudice. Each party will bear its own costs and expenses. All

pending motions are DENIED as moot.

DATED this 7th day of January, 2008.

 /s/Wm. R. Wilson, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:07-cv-00130-BRW Document 71 Filed 01/07/08 Page 2 of 2