Marbury v. Strafford County Department of Corrections, Medical Department et al
ORDER denying without prejudice 10 Motion to Appoint Medical Expert; denying without prejudice 11 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying without prejudice 15 Motion for Court Transcript of 4/26/12 sentencing; denying without prejudice 16 Motion to Compel Discovery - Medical Records from Strafford County Medical Dept. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(dae)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Raymond G. Marbury
Civil No. 12-cv-339-JL
Strafford County Department
of Corrections Medical Department
O R D E R
Raymond G. Marbury has filed a complaint (doc. no. 1) and
addenda to the complaint (doc. nos. 5, 7, 12-14, and 22),
asserting that his right to receive adequate medical care was
violated while he was an inmate at the Strafford County
Department of Corrections.
In a report and recommendation
issued this date (“the R&R”), the court recommends that the
complaint be denied in its entirety for failing to state any
claim upon which relief might be granted.
Several motions Marbury filed in this matter are pending
before the court, including: a motion to appoint a medical
expert (doc. no. 10); a motion to appoint counsel (doc. no. 11);
a motion for a transcript (doc. no. 15); and a motion to compel
discovery (doc. no. 16).
Because the court finds in the R&R
that Marbury has failed to state any claim upon which relief
might be granted, and recommended dismissal of this action, the
court denies each of these pending motions as each will be
mooted if the district judge approves the R&R and dismisses the
The denial is without prejudice to Marbury renewing the
motions should the district judge not accept this court’s
recommendation of dismissal.
United States Magistrate Judge
May 8, 2013
Raymond G. Marbury, pro se
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.