Redleski v. Plumley et al

Filing 54

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 52 : The Court ADOPTS the Reportand Recommendation in its entirety 52 , GRANTS Hissom and Plumleys motions to dismiss 25 , 27 and DISMISSES Redleskis complaint as to them WITH PREJUDICE, CONVERTS Proc tor and Tennys motion to dismiss into a motion to quash service of process, and GRANTS the motion to quash service of process 30 Finally, the Court DIRECTS Redleski to comply with LR Civ. P. 4.01, Waiver of Service, within fourteen days of receipt o f this Order. Signed by District Judge Irene M. Keeley on 3/4/16. (jss) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/4/2016: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (jss). Modified on 3/4/2016 The Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter a separate judgment order. (jss).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
DOUGLAS ANDREW REDLESKI,
Plaintiff,
v.

//

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15CV89
(Judge Keeley)

MARVIN C. PLUMLEY, Warden,
DEBBIE HISSOM, RN, BSN,
DAVID PROCTOR, Practicing Physician,
TRISTEN TENNY, RN, HSA,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 52]
On May 21, 2015, the pro se plaintiff, Douglas Andrew Redleski
(“Redleski”), filed a state civil rights complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, which the Court referred to the Honorable Michael J.
Aloi, United States Magistrate Judge, for initial screening and a
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in accordance with LR PL P 2.
Redleski contends that the defendants denied him proper medical
care, in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, during his time at Huttonsville Correctional Center
(“HCC”) (Dkt. No. 1).
On February 9, 2016, Magistrate Judge Aloi issued a R&R (Dkt.
No. 52), in which he recommended that the Court grant the motions
to dismiss filed by defendants Debbie Hossom (“Hissom”) and Marvin
Plumley (“Plumley”)(Dkt. Nos. 25, 27) because they lacked personal
involvement in Redleski’s medical care at HCC (Dkt. No. 52 at 18).
The R&R also recommended that the Court convert the motion to
dismiss for insufficient service of process filed by defendants

REDLESKI V. PLUMLEY, ET AL.

1:15CV89

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 52]
Tristen Tenny (“Tenny”) and David Proctor (“Proctor”) (Dkt. No. 30)
into a motion to quash service of process, and that the Court grant
the motion to quash service of process (Dkt. No. 52 at 18).
Finally, the R&R recommended that the Court direct Redleski to
properly serve Tenny and Proctor by a date certain.

Id.

The R&R also specifically warned the parties that their
failure to object to the recommendation would result in the waiver
of any appellate rights they might otherwise have on this issue.
Id.

at

21.

The

parties

did

not

file

any

objections.1

Consequently, finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the Report
and Recommendation in its entirety (Dkt. No. 52), GRANTS Hissom and
Plumley’s motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 25, 27) and DISMISSES
Redleski’s complaint as to them WITH PREJUDICE, CONVERTS Proctor
and Tenny’s motion to dismiss into a motion to quash service of
process, and GRANTS the motion to quash service of process (Dkt.
No. 30).
Finally, the Court DIRECTS Redleski to comply with LR Civ. P.
4.01, Waiver of Service, within fourteen days of receipt of this
Order.

In the alternative, Redleski can prepay the United States

1

The failure to object to the Report and Recommendation not only
waives the appellate rights in this matter, but also relieves the
Court of any obligation to conduct a de novo review of the issue
presented. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-153 (1985); Wells
v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1997).
2

REDLESKI V. PLUMLEY, ET AL.

1:15CV89

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 52]
Marshal Service for service of the complaint, as explained in
Magistrate Judge Aloi’s July 8, 2015, Order (Dkt. No. 32).
It is so ORDERED.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of
Court to enter a separate judgment order and to transmit copies of
both orders to counsel of record and to the pro se plaintiff,
certified mail, return receipt requested.
Dated:

March 4, 2016.
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3