Ivy et al v. Henderson County Detention Center et al
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Chief Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. on 10/11/2016: The 30-day period has expired, and the record reflects that Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Therefore, the action will be dismissed by separate Order for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. cc: Plaintiff (pro se), Defendants (JBM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15CV-P146-JHM
HENDERSON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER et al.
Plaintiff Christopher Davis, a pretrial detainee incarcerated at the Henderson County
Detention Center (HCDC), filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (DN 1). By
Memorandum Opinion and Order entered June 28, 2016 (DN 16), the Court conducted an initial
review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed the claims against the
Defendants HCDC/Henderson County and Southern Health Partners pursuant to § 1915A(b)(1)
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court also provided Plaintiff
30 days within which to file an amended complaint to name the person or persons involved in his
claims that he is being denied medical treatment; to sue them in their individual capacity; to
describe the facts surrounding each Defendant’s involvement in his claims; and to sue Leah
Humphries in her individual capacity and allege facts surrounding the retaliation claim. The
Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to file an amended complaint within the time allotted
would result in dismissal of the entire action for the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion
The 30-day period has expired, and the record reflects that Plaintiff has not filed an
amended complaint. Therefore, the action will be dismissed by separate Order for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted.
October 11, 2016
Plaintiff, pro se
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?