JOHN MICHAEL BOWDEN, ADC #129677, Plaintiff,
v.
CORIZON, INC., et al., Defendants.
United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
January 30, 2012.
January 30, 2012.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
John Michael Bowden, ADC #129677, Plaintiff Pro Se.
Corizon Inc, also known as Correctional Medical Services Inc., Defendant represented by Michelle Banks Odum , Humphries & Lewis.
Wendy Kelly, Deputy Director of Health, Arkansas Department of Correction, Defendant represented by Christine A. Cryer , Arkansas Attorney General's Office.
Roland Anderson, Director of Health Services, Arkansas Department of Correction, Defendant represented by Michelle Banks Odum , Humphries & Lewis.
Dona Gordon, Health Services Administrator, CMS, Defendant represented by Michelle Banks Odum , Humphries & Lewis.
Genia Snyder, originally sued as Gina Snyder, Defendant represented by Michelle Banks Odum , Humphries & Lewis.
Shelly Byers, originally sued as Byers, Defendant represented by Michelle Banks Odum , Humphries & Lewis.
Amanda McLean, originally sued as McClain, Defendant represented by Michelle Banks Odum , Humphries & Lewis.
Linda Vincent, originally sued as Vincent, Defendant represented by Michelle Banks Odum , Humphries & Lewis.
Amanda Pevey, originally sued as Peavey, Defendant represented by Michelle Banks Odum , Humphries & Lewis.
Leslie Watts, originally sued as Watts, Defendant represented by Michelle Banks Odum , Humphries & Lewis.
Melissa Jarrett, originally sued as Jarrett, Defendant represented by Michelle Banks Odum , Humphries & Lewis.
Mandy Roe, originally sued as Roe, Defendant represented by Michelle Banks Odum , Humphries & Lewis.
Amanda Grey, originally sued as Gray, Defendant represented by Michelle Banks Odum , Humphries & Lewis.
Tamala Thompson, originally sued as Thompson, Defendant represented by Michelle Banks Odum , Humphries & Lewis.
United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division.
ORDER
JEROME T. KEARNEY, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for a Physical Examination (Doc. No. 69). Defendants filed a Response in opposition to the Motion (Doc. No. 77).
In support of his Motion, Plaintiff states an independent medical examination is necessary for him to prove that Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference in failing to treat his rectal abscess. Plaintiff cites...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.