Menei v. Rubenstein et al

Filing 67

ORDER adopting 54 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; granting defendant's 43 Motion to Dismiss filed by Humayan Rashid. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 7/9/2013. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

THOMAS RAYMOND MENEI,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-cv-00967

JIM RUBENSTEIN, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
Pending before the court is defendant Humayan Rashid’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket 43].
This Motion was referred to the Honorable Mary E. Stanley, United States Magistrate Judge, for
submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). When a Magistrate Judge issues a recommendation on a dispositive matter,
the court reviews de novo those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s report to which specific
objections are filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3).
The court has reviewed de novo those portions of the Proposed Findings and
Recommendations [Docket 54] to which the plaintiff has filed specific Objections [Docket 63],
and FINDS that the plaintiff’s objections lack merit. Because the plaintiff has failed to add any
facts that establish that “Dr. Rashid denied him any medically necessary treatment,” he has not met
the standard for an Eighth Amendment violation of deliberate indifference to a serious medical
need.

Accordingly, the court ADOPTS and incorporates herein the findings and
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge [Docket 54]. The defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Docket
43] is GRANTED.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.

ENTER:

July 9, 2013