Bridges v. Murray et al

Filing 51

ORDER granting 50 Unopposed Motion for an Order requiring the N. C. Dept. of Correction to Allow Physical Examination of Plaintiff. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 3/18/09. (siw)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:08CV13-3-MU DANNY RAY BRIDGES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CHAD MURRAY, et al., ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's "Unopposed Motion for an Order Requiring the North Carolina Department of Correction to Allow Physical Examination of Plaintiff" filed March 17, 2009 (Doc. No. 50.) The Court having considered the Motion and the file, finds that for the reasons stated in the Motion, Plaintiff's Motion shall be granted. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff's motion is granted and he may receive a physical examination by his chosen orthopedic surgeon; (2) Plaintiff's counsel shall work with officials at the North Carolina Department of Correction ("NCDOC") to schedule the examination of plaintiff by his chosen orthopedic surgeon; (3) The physical examination shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order unless NCDOC and Plaintiff's counsel mutually agree to a later date for the examination; and 1 (4) The NCDOC shall transport Plaintiff to and from the place at which the examination will be performed and shall ensure that Plaintiff arrives in time for the examination and in time to complete any required paperwork or preparatory procedures; and (5) Plaintiff and his counsel shall be responsible for arranging for payment of the costs of the physical examination and NCDOC will have no responsibility for the costs of the examination; (6) Appropriate security procedures for transporting Plaintiff to and from the test and during the examination are to remain at NCDOC's discretion. SO ORDERED. Signed: March 18, 2009 2

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?