Powell v. Laurie et al

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: This action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer 21 is denied as moot. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 09/20/17. Mailed to pro se party Darren L. Powell by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
DARREN LEE POWELL,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO.16-3251-SAC-DJW

JACK LAURIE, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.

Plaintiff alleges that he has been denied appropriate

medical care for the treatment of diabetes by the staff of the
Atchison County Jail (“ACJ”).

He further alleges he has been

retaliated against by jail staff and been denied information.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
On August 11, 2017, Magistrate Judge Waxse entered a Notice
and Order to Show Cause (Doc. #22)(“NOSC”) ordering Plaintiff to
show cause within twenty (20) days of the receipt of the order
why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to state a
claim.

The NOSC stated that if Plaintiff failed within the time

allotted to file a response, this action could be dismissed
without further notice.

Plaintiff has not responded to the

NOSC.

1

The NOSC found that none of Plaintiff’s claims alleging
denial of adequate medical care in Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4 of his
complaint state a claim because his allegations do not show the
deliberate
violation.

indifference

necessary

for

an

Eighth

Amendment

See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976).

These claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Count 5 of Plaintiff’s complaint was already dismissed by
the

Court.

See

Doc.

#10.

As

for

Counts

6

and

7

of

the

complaint, the NOSC further found that Plaintiff’s allegations
of denial of information do not make out a violation of the
Constitution or federal law and that his claim of retaliation
fails

because

he

responsive action.

does

not

allege

a

sufficiently

adverse

See Reed v. Heimgartner, 579 F. App’x 624,

626-27 (10th Cir. 2014); Eaton v. Meneley, 379 F.3d 949, 955 (10th
Cir. 2004).

These claims are dismissed for failure to state a

claim.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Extension
of Time to File Answer (Doc. #21) is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 20th day of September, 2017, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/ Sam A. Crow______
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge
2