Summary
holding that conducting a rectal examination during an initial screening of an inmate does not amount to sexual abuse; plaintiff did not allege that doctor performed examination in a manner designed to inflict pain or discomfort
Summary of this case from Candelaria v. HigleyOpinion
Civil Action No. 05-279.
December 20, 2007
MEMORANDUM ORDER
An in forma pauperis application in the above-captioned prisoner civil rights case was received by the Clerk of Court on March 3, 2005, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrate Judges.
The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (doc. no. 80), filed on November 21, 2007, recommended that Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgement (doc. nos. 63 and 66) be granted. Plaintiff filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation on December 6, 2007 (doc. no. 81).
After de novo review of the pleadings and the documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation, and the Objections thereto, the following order is entered: AND NOW, this 20th day of December, 2007;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgement (doc. nos. 63 and 66) be GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (doc. no. 80) filed on November 21, 2007, by Magistrate Judge Lenihan, is adopted as the Opinion of the court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this case CLOSED. AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Plaintiff has thirty (30) days to file a notice of appeal as provided by Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.