Filed: Jan. 18, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 18, 2012
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III[, Chief District Judge. On January 25, 2010, James L. Andrade, Jr. ("Andrade" or "plaintiff"), a state inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 [D.E.1]. On November 16, 2010, the court reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A, allowed Andrade to proceed with his claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against defendants Bell and Hassan, and directed Andrade to file a response with information
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III[, Chief District Judge. On January 25, 2010, James L. Andrade, Jr. ("Andrade" or "plaintiff"), a state inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 [D.E.1]. On November 16, 2010, the court reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A, allowed Andrade to proceed with his claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against defendants Bell and Hassan, and directed Andrade to file a response with information s..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. DEVER, III[, Chief District Judge.
On January 25, 2010, James L. Andrade, Jr. ("Andrade" or "plaintiff"), a state inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [D.E.1]. On November 16, 2010, the court reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, allowed Andrade to proceed with his claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against defendants Bell and Hassan, and directed Andrade to file a response with information sufficient to determine whether Andrade had exhausted the administrative remedies available for his Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Rehabilitation Act ("RA") claims [D.E. 2]. On March 30, 2011, the court dismissed Andrade's ADA and RA claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies [D.E. 7], and the clerk directed North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Inc., ("NCPLS") to investigate plaintiffs remaining claims [D.E. 8]. On June 28, 2011, NCPLS responded to the order of investigation, stating that it had investigated plaintiffs complaint and determined that appointment of counsel is not warranted [D.E. 15].
On July 28, 2011, defendant Bell answered the complaint and filed a motion to dismiss [D.E. 18-19]. On September 1, 2011, the court entered a scheduling order [D.E. 23]. On October 26, 2011, defendant Hassan filed a motion to seal [D.E. 25]. On October 31, 2011, defendants Hassan and Bell filed motions for summary judgment [D.E. 27, 30]. Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975) (per curiam), the court notified Andrade about defendant Bell's motion to dismiss and defendant Hassan's motion for summary judgment, the consequences of failing to respond, and the response deadlines [D.E. 21, 29].1 On November 10, 2011, Andrade responded in opposition to defendant Hassan's motion to seal [D.E. 32]. On December 21, 2011, Andrade filed an affidavit, which the court construes as a response in opposition to defendant Hassan's motion for summary judgment [D.E. 34].
In light of defendant Bell's motion for summary judgment, the court DENIES AS MOOT his motion to dismiss [D.E. 19]. Andrade has until February 24, 2012 to file a response to defendant Bell's motion for summary judgment. All other motions remain pending.
SO ORDERED.
