1I liberally construe the claims against the SCDOC to be

brought against Warren Dowaliby in his representative capacity as

Superintendent of the SCDOC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Prealou J. Roberts

v. Civil No. 09-cv-34-PB

United States Marshals Service, et al.

O R D E R

Pro se plaintiff Prealou J. Roberts has filed a complaint,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was denied

adequate medical care and subjected to unnecessary surgery in

violation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the

United States Constitution (document no. 1) and New Hampshire

law. Seeking injunctive and monetary relief, he brings this

action against the following individuals and entities: United

States Marshals Service; Wentworth Douglas Hospital; Prime Care

Medical Services; Strafford County Department of Corrections

(“SCDOC”)1; and Tracey Warren, an employee of the SCDOC. I

liberally construe the claims against the United States Marshals

Service, a federal agency, to be brought pursuant to Bivens v.

Case 1:09-cv-00034-SM Document 17 Filed 04/30/09 Page 1 of 4
2

Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.

388, 397 (1971). 

The complaint is before me for preliminary review to

determine whether, among other things, it states a claim upon

which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; U.S.

District Court for the District of New Hampshire Local Rule

(“LR”) 4.3(d)(2). For the reasons stated in the report and

recommendation issued simultaneously herewith, I find that

Roberts has alleged the following claims: (1) Fourteenth

Amendment claims, premised upon the denial of adequate medical

care, against Warren and Prime Care Medical Services; and (2)

state law negligence claims against Prime Care Medical Services,

Wentworth Douglas Hospital and an unnamed surgeon employed by

that hospital. I recommend dismissal of all remaining claims.

Also filed is a motion to compel release of medical records

(document no. 9), motion to compel discovery (document no. 14) 

and motion to appoint counsel (document no. 10), which I

recommend be denied without prejudice to being renewed at a later

date should circumstances warrant renewal. As Roberts has been

granted in forma pauperis status, I recommend that his “motion to

proceed in forma pauperis for request of counsel” (document no.

Case 1:09-cv-00034-SM Document 17 Filed 04/30/09 Page 2 of 4
3

11) be denied as moot.

Accordingly, I order the complaint to be served on the

properly named defendants. My review of the file indicates that

Roberts has not filed the necessary summons forms. Roberts must

submit a separate summons form for each defendant he seeks to

name in this action. The Clerk’s Office is directed to forward

the appropriate forms to Roberts, who must return the completed

forms within thirty days of the date of this order. 

Upon receipt of the completed summons forms, the Clerk’s

office shall issue the summonses against the defendants and

forward to the United States Marshal for the District of New

Hampshire (the “U.S. Marshal’s office”) the summonses and copies

of the complaint (document no. 1), the report and recommendation

and this order. Upon receipt of the necessary documentation, the

U.S. Marshal’s office shall effect service upon the defendants. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). 

Defendants are instructed to answer or otherwise plead

within twenty days of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). 

Plaintiff is instructed that all future pleadings, written

motions, notices, or similar papers shall be served directly on

the defendants by delivering or mailing the materials to them or 

Case 1:09-cv-00034-SM Document 17 Filed 04/30/09 Page 3 of 4
4

their attorney(s), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b). 

SO ORDERED.

________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: April 30, 2009

cc: Prealou J. Roberts, pro se

Case 1:09-cv-00034-SM Document 17 Filed 04/30/09 Page 4 of 4