![]() Discovery requests need not be filed with the Court.(7) The parties must comply with the District of Connecticut Standing Order Re: Initial Discovery Disclosures, which will be sent to both parties by the Court. (6) Discovery, according to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26-37, shal l be completed by June 7, 2022. ![]() The defendants may also include any and all additional defenses permitted by the Federal Rules. If the defendants choose to file an answer, they shall admit or deny the allegations and respond to the cognizable claims recited above. (5) The defendants shall file a response to the complaint, either an answer or motion to dismiss, within sixty (60) days from the date the notice of lawsuit and waiver of service of summons forms are mailed to them. (4) The clerk shall send a courtesy copy of the complaint and this Order to the DOC Office of Legal Affairs and the Office of the Attorney General. Valletta, Nurse Nadeau, Commission er Quiros, and Dr. Marshal is directed to effect service of the complaint on the defendants, Dr. ![]() (3) The clerk shall prepare a summons form and send an official capacity servic e packet, including the complaint and this Initial Review Order, to the United States Marshal Service. Marshals Service on that defendant, and that defendant shall be required to pay the costs of such service in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d). If a defendant fails to return the waiver request, the clerk shall make arrangements for in-person individual capacity service by the U.S. Kennedy with the DOC Office of Legal Affairs, mail a waiver of service of process request packet containing the complaint to them at their confirmed addresses within twenty-one (21) da ys of this Order, and report on the status of the waiver request on the thirty-fifth (35th) day after mailing. Valletta, Nurse Nadeau, Commissioner Quiros, and Dr. (2) The clerk shall verify the current work address of Dr. Jamison and any other defendants are SEVERED and DISMISSED without prejudice to pursuing those claims in a separate action. Marra's Eighth Amendment claims arising from his need to be seen by an ophthalmologist against Dr. Freston and LPN Lockery in their individual and official capacities. Kennedy in their individual and official capacities and on his Eighth Amendment medical indifference claims based on failure to facilitate his appointment with a dermatologist an d his colonoscopy against Dr. INITIAL REVIEW ORDER: As set forth in the attached: (1) The case shall proceed on Marra's Eighth Amendment medical indifference claims based on failure to provide him treatment and surgery for his shoulder fractures against Dr.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |