BUFFKIN et al v. HOOKS et al
| LLOYD BUFFKIN, KIM CALDWELL and ROBERT PARHAM |
| ERIK HOOKS, ABHAY AGARWAL, KENNETH LASSITER, PAULA SMITH and NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY |
| 1:2018cv00502 |
| June 15, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina |
| NCMD Office |
| Scotland |
| JOE L. WEBSTER |
| WILLIAM L. OSTEEN |
| Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
97
ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER on 4/2/2020, with the concurrence of the Honorable Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Judge, Eastern District of North Carolina, that the authorization for United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. to perform settlement/mediation duties as a magistrate judge in the case of Buffkin v. Hooks, No. 1:18-CV-502-WO-JLW, in the Middle District of North Carolina, is extended to May 30, 2020.(Marsh, Keah)
|
|
Filing
55
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 03/20/2019, that the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, (Doc. 38 ), is ADOPTED IN PART in accordance with the foregoing analysis. FURTHER OR DERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class, (Doc. 3 ), is GRANTED and that the class be defined as "all current and future prisoners in DPS custody who have or will have chronic hepatitis C virus and have not been treated with direc t-acting antiviral drugs." FURTHER ORDERED that Lloyd Buffkin and Robert Parham are named as class representatives and that Plaintiffs' counsel is appointed as class counsel. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary In junction, (Doc. 26 ), is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth herein, in that Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction ordering Defendants to provide DAA treatment to the named Plaintiffs is GRANTED, Plaintiffs' reques t for an injunction ordering Defendants to cease denying DAA treatment based on contraindications, other than patient refusal, and to cease denying DAA treatment based solely on a prisoner's FibroSure score, is GRANTED in that Policy #CP-7 i s hereby ENJOINED in its entirety, and Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction ordering Defendants to institute universal opt-out screening and to treat all class members with DAAs regardless of fibrosis level is DENIED. (Garland, Leah)
|
|
Filing
38
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 11/30/2018, that Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class (Docket Entry 3 ) be GRANTED and the class be defined as "all current and future prisoners in DPS custody who have or will have chronic hepatitis C virus and have not been treated with direct-acting antiviral drugs." FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Lloyd Buffkin and Robert Parham be nam ed as class representatives and that Plaintiffs' counsel be appointed as class counsel. FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket Entry 26 ) be GRANTED and a preliminary injunction be issued ordering Defendants to: (1) provide universal opt-out HCV screening to all persons who are or will be in DPS custody; (2) cease denying DAA treatment for the contraindications, other than patient refusal, set out in Step 4a of DPS Policy #CP-7; and (3) treat Plaintiffs and all members of their class with DAAs according to the current standard of medical care set out in the AASLD/IDSA Guidance, regardless of an individual's fibrosis level. (Garland, Leah)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the North Carolina Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
