From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

NINO v. BUREAU OF PRISONS

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
May 8, 2008
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07CV56 (N.D.W. Va. May. 8, 2008)

Summary

declining to dismiss Eighth Amendment claim against the BOP because allegations satisfied subjective and objective prong of the Eighth Amendment inquiry

Summary of this case from MATHIS v. GEO GROUP, INC.

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07CV56.

May 8, 2008


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


On April 23, 2007, plaintiff, Jose Oscar Nino, filed this civil rights action seeking a preliminary injunction directing the defendants to transfer him to a Federal Medical Center for proper treatment of his infection. On January 2, 2008, Magistrate Judge John S. Kaull filed a report and recommendation ("R R") recommending that 1) the plaintiff's claims against the unknown doctors at USP-Pollack, Mr. Smith, the unknown HSA at USP-Pollack, and the unknown doctors and other medical assistants at the medical center in Alexander, Louisiana be DISMISSED for lack of personal jurisdiction; and 2) that the United States Marshal Service be directed to serve a copy of the complaint, a completed summons, and a completed Marshal 285 Form on defendants Bureau of Prisons, Martinez, Boyles, Azuma and Vasquez.

The R R informed the parties that failure to submit objections within ten days of receipt of the R R would result in the waiver of appellate rights on this issue. No objections were filed. The Court notes, however, that on January 14, 2008, Nino informed the Court, by letter, that he had received that R R, but, because he was in transit following surgery at that time, he would contact the Court once he was returned to USP-Hazelton. The Court has received no further communications from Nino.

The failure of the parties to object to the Report and Recommendation waives their appellate rights in this matter and 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).

The Court, therefore, ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Kaull's R R (dkt. no. 18) in its entirety and ORDERS that:

1) The plaintiff's claims against the unknown doctors at USP-Pollack, Mr. Smith, the unknown HSA at USP-Pollack, and the unknown doctors and other medical assistants at the medical center in Alexander, Louisiana be DISMISSED for lack of personal jurisdiction; and

2) The United States Marshal be directed to serve a copy of the complaint, a completed summons, and a completed Marshal 285 Form on defendants, Bureau of Prisons, Martinez, Boyles, Azuma and Vazuez.

The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se plaintiff, certified mail, return receipt requested, and to transmit copies to counsel of record.


Summaries of

NINO v. BUREAU OF PRISONS

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
May 8, 2008
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07CV56 (N.D.W. Va. May. 8, 2008)

declining to dismiss Eighth Amendment claim against the BOP because allegations satisfied subjective and objective prong of the Eighth Amendment inquiry

Summary of this case from MATHIS v. GEO GROUP, INC.
Case details for

NINO v. BUREAU OF PRISONS

Case Details

Full title:JOSE OSCAR NINO, Plaintiff, v. BUREAU OF PRISONS, MARTINEZ, Warden…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia

Date published: May 8, 2008

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07CV56 (N.D.W. Va. May. 8, 2008)

Citing Cases

MATHIS v. GEO GROUP, INC.

Moreover, nothing in Farmer precludes BOP liability simply because it is an agency which may only possess…