Huffman v. McCarthy et al

Filing 84

ORDER denying 31 Motion for TRO; denying 55 Motion for TRO; denying 9 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; granting 10 Motion for Summary Judgment ; granting 13 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 25 Motion for Summary Judgment (Opinion and Order Mailed to Pro Se Party). Signed by Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 9/29/2017. (tvt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
ROBERT C. HUFFMAN,
Plaintiff
v.
DR. McCARTHY, et al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 7:17cv00032
FINAL ORDER

The plaintiff, Robert C. Huffman, (“Huffman”), an inmate formerly
incarcerated at Pocahontas State Correctional Center, (“PSCC”), and proceeding
pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the
defendants, all of whom are employees of the Virginia Department of Corrections,
(“VDOC”), or are VDOC contracted medical service providers, have been
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, in violation of his Eighth
Amendment rights. Huffman seeks monetary and injunctive relief. This case is
before the court on Huffman’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief, (Docket
Item Nos. 9, 31, 55), defendant Henry Ponton, Jr.’s, Motion To Dismiss, (Docket
Item No. 13), and the defendants’ motions for summary judgment claiming
Huffman’s claims should be dismissed for failure to exhaust his administrative
remedies, (Docket Item Nos. 10, 25). An evidentiary hearing was held before the
undersigned on June 26-27, 2017.
Based on the reasons stated in the Memoradum Opinion accompanying this
Order, it is ORDERED as follows:

-1-

1.

The defendants’ motions for summary judgment claiming Huffman’s
claims should be dismissed for failure to exhaust his administrative
remedies, (Docket Item Nos. 10, 25), are GRANTED;

2.

Defendant Henry Ponton, Jr.’s, Motion To Dismiss, (Docket Item No.
13), which has been treated as a motion for summary judgment, is
GRANTED;

3.

The plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief, (Docket Item
Nos. 9, 31, 55), are DENIED; and

4.

Summary judgment will be entered in the defendants’ favor on the
plaintiff’s claims.

The Clerk’s Office shall provide a copy of this Order and the accompanying
Memorandum Opinion to all counsel of record and unrepresented parties.
ENTERED: September 29, 2017.

Pamela Meade Sargent

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-