Huffman v. McCarthy et al, No. 7:2017cv00032 - Document 84 (W.D. Va. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER denying 31 Motion for TRO; denying 55 Motion for TRO; denying 9 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; granting 10 Motion for Summary Judgment ; granting 13 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 25 Motion for Summary Judgment (Opinion and Order Mailed to Pro Se Party). Signed by Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 9/29/2017. (tvt)
Download PDF
Huffman v. McCarthy et al Doc. 84 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION ROBERT C. HUFFMAN, Plaintiff v. DR. McCARTHY, et al., Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No.: 7:17cv00032 FINAL ORDER The plaintiff, Robert C. Huffman, (“Huffman”), an inmate formerly incarcerated at Pocahontas State Correctional Center, (“PSCC”), and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants, all of whom are employees of the Virginia Department of Corrections, (“VDOC”), or are VDOC contracted medical service providers, have been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Huffman seeks monetary and injunctive relief. This case is before the court on Huffman’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief, (Docket Item Nos. 9, 31, 55), defendant Henry Ponton, Jr.’s, Motion To Dismiss, (Docket Item No. 13), and the defendants’ motions for summary judgment claiming Huffman’s claims should be dismissed for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, (Docket Item Nos. 10, 25). An evidentiary hearing was held before the undersigned on June 26-27, 2017. Based on the reasons stated in the Memoradum Opinion accompanying this Order, it is ORDERED as follows: -1- Dockets.Justia.com 1. The defendants’ motions for summary judgment claiming Huffman’s claims should be dismissed for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, (Docket Item Nos. 10, 25), are GRANTED; 2. Defendant Henry Ponton, Jr.’s, Motion To Dismiss, (Docket Item No. 13), which has been treated as a motion for summary judgment, is GRANTED; 3. The plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief, (Docket Item Nos. 9, 31, 55), are DENIED; and 4. Summary judgment will be entered in the defendants’ favor on the plaintiff’s claims. The Clerk’s Office shall provide a copy of this Order and the accompanying Memorandum Opinion to all counsel of record and unrepresented parties. ENTERED: September 29, 2017. Pamela Meade Sargent /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE -2-