Filed: Jan. 12, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 12, 2012
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, Jr., District Judge. Magistrate Judge H. David Young entered Proposed Findings and Recommendations in this case, Document No. 38, to which adom objected, Document No. 43. Having conducted a de novo review of the record, FED. R. Cry. P. 72(b)(3), the Court adopts the partial recommended disposition as its own. Even if Humphrey (a radiologist) made a false statement about adom's x-ray, that alone would not violate the Constitution. Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 450 ,
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, Jr., District Judge. Magistrate Judge H. David Young entered Proposed Findings and Recommendations in this case, Document No. 38, to which adom objected, Document No. 43. Having conducted a de novo review of the record, FED. R. Cry. P. 72(b)(3), the Court adopts the partial recommended disposition as its own. Even if Humphrey (a radiologist) made a false statement about adom's x-ray, that alone would not violate the Constitution. Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 450 , ..
More
ORDER
D.P. MARSHALL, Jr., District Judge.
Magistrate Judge H. David Young entered Proposed Findings and Recommendations in this case, Document No. 38, to which adom objected, Document No. 43. Having conducted a de novo review of the record, FED. R. Cry. P. 72(b)(3), the Court adopts the partial recommended disposition as its own. Even if Humphrey (a radiologist) made a false statement about adom's x-ray, that alone would not violate the Constitution. Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989). More importantly, adom has not described any actions by Humphrey sufficient to hold the radiologist liable for the alleged wrongdoing of the named prison officials.
Humphrey's motion to dismiss, Document No. 16, is granted. Odom's claims against Humphrey are dismissed with prejudice. Humphrey's motions for leave to file a reply brief, Document No. 33, and for a protective order, Document No. 36, are denied as moot.
So Ordered.
