Priestley v. Rockingham County Department of Corrections et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Matthew L. Priestley
v. Civil No. 16-cv-387-JL
Rockingham County Department of
Corrections et al.1
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Matthew L. Priestley, an inmate in the custody of the
Rockingham County Department of Corrections, filed an action
suing county agencies and employees, and private party medical
providers, asserting claims of negligence and violations of his
federal constitutional rights. This court’s December 19, 2016
Order (Doc. No. 5) states that the complaint appeared to lack
sufficient detail to state a federal claim upon which relief
could be granted, and granted plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint by January 18, 2017 to state a claim that his federal
rights had been violated. That Order specifically warned
plaintiff that if, by January 18, 2017, he failed to file either
1Defendants named by Priestley are the Rockingham Department
of Corrections (“RCDC”); RCDC Superintendent Stephen A. Church;
RCDC Deputy Superintendent Maj. Dave Consentino; an unnamed RCDC
Mental Health Department Counselor or Psychiatrist; RCDC
Corrections Officer Balluck, whose first name is unknown; Prime
Care Medical, Inc. (“PCMI”); RCDC/PCMI Nurse Nikki, whose last
name is unknown (“LNU”); and RCDC/PCMI Nurse Nate LNU.
Case 1:16-cv-00387-JL Document 6 Filed 02/16/17 Page 1 of 2

2
an amended complaint or a motion to extend time to file an
amended complaint, the court might recommend that the case be
dismissed for failure to state a federal claim, or for failure
to prosecute.
For reasons stated in the December 19, 2016 Order (Doc. No.
5), incorporated here by reference, the complaint fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has neither
amended the complaint, nor filed any other response to the
December 19, 2016 Order (Doc. No. 5). Accordingly, the district
judge should issue an order approving this Report and
Recommendation, and dismissing this action without prejudice,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen day period may be extended
upon motion. Failure to file objections within the specified
time waives the right to appeal the district court’s order. See
Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir.
2016).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
February 16, 2017
cc: Matthew L. Priestley, pro se
Case 1:16-cv-00387-JL Document 6 Filed 02/16/17 Page 2 of 2