DODDS v. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, 5:11-cv-291-DPM-BD. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20120424831
Visitors: 7
Filed: Apr. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 23, 2012
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, Jr., District Judge. The Court has considered Magistrate Judge Beth Deere's proposed Partial Recommended Disposition, Document No. 33, and John Dodds's objection, Document No. 44. Having conducted a de novo review, the Court adopts Judge Deere's proposed result with a clarification on the reasoning. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). Dodds's objection, which Judge Deere did not have, asserts a contract between st. Vincent and eMS. Assuming without deciding that this alleged c
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, Jr., District Judge. The Court has considered Magistrate Judge Beth Deere's proposed Partial Recommended Disposition, Document No. 33, and John Dodds's objection, Document No. 44. Having conducted a de novo review, the Court adopts Judge Deere's proposed result with a clarification on the reasoning. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). Dodds's objection, which Judge Deere did not have, asserts a contract between st. Vincent and eMS. Assuming without deciding that this alleged co..
More
ORDER
D.P. MARSHALL, Jr., District Judge.
The Court has considered Magistrate Judge Beth Deere's proposed Partial Recommended Disposition, Document No. 33, and John Dodds's objection, Document No. 44. Having conducted a de novo review, the Court adopts Judge Deere's proposed result with a clarification on the reasoning. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). Dodds's objection, which Judge Deere did not have, asserts a contract between st. Vincent and eMS. Assuming without deciding that this alleged contract exists and would make St. Vincent a state actor subject to § 1983, Dodds's claim against the hospital nonetheless still fails as a matier of law. Dodds's allegations about St. Vincent's lack of follow-up, and failure to replace Dr. Houston, at most create an issue of negligence, not deliberate indifference. Dodds's claims against St. Vincent are therefore dismissed without prejudice.
So Ordered.
Source: Leagle
