ADAWEH v. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES et al, No. 1:2011cv00172 - Document 30 (D. Me. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE adopting 26 Report and Recommendations; denying 7 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 15 Motion to Amend. ; granting 17 Motion to Dismiss By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of Maine KHADAR I. ADAWEH, Plaintiff v. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, et al., Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:11-cv-172-GZS ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on December 28, 2011, her Recommended Decision (Docket No. 26). Defendants Victoria Matthews, D.D.S. and Theresa Kesteloot filed their Response to the Recommended Decision (Docket No. 27) on January 17, 2012. Plaintiff filed his Objection to the Recommended Decision (Docket No. 28) on January 19, 2012. Defendants filed their Response to Plaintiff s Objection to the Recommended Decision (Docket No. 29) on February 6, 2012. I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision; and I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in her Recommended Decision, and determine that no further proceeding is necessary. 1. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby AFFIRMED. 2. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 7) is DENIED. 3. It is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 17) filed by Defendants Corizon, Inc. f/k/a Correctional Medical Services, Inc., Tammy Hatch and Wendy McLoon is GRANTED. 4. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff s Motion to Supplement (Docket No. 15) to add Sue Ferra as a Defendant is DENIED but I ALLOW the supplemental allegation that the Defendant chipped a tooth in May 2011 and that Dr. Matthews was aware of this tooth s problems since 2009. This supplementation shall be incorporated into an amended complaint which shall be filed within 21 days, and the remaining defendants shall respond within 20 days thereafter. /s/George Z. Singal_____________ U.S. District Judge Dated this 7th day of February 2012.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
