Order Denying Motion to Reconsider

JAMES PATRICK HANLON, District Judge.

The plaintiff's motion to reconsider, dkt. [125], is denied. In its Entry dated December 9, 2019, the Court allowed the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need to proceed against Lieutenant McCutcheon, Sergeant Sarten, Dr. Talbot, Nurse Moore-Groves, Nurse Walker, and Director of Nurse Stephens. See dkt. 119. In the same Entry, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's breach of contract claims. Id.

The plaintiff now contends that the Court should have inferred that his breach of contract claims were based on the theory that the plaintiff is a third-party beneficiary to a contract between Wexford and the Indiana Department of Correction. Dkt. 125. While a pro se complaint should be construed liberally, see Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 2015), the plaintiff alleged no facts from which the Court could have inferred that the plaintiff stated a breach of contract claim as a third-party beneficiary. Specifically, in Indiana, a third party may sue to enforce a contract if it "clearly appear[s] that it was the purpose or a purpose of the contract to impose an obligation on one of the contracting parties in favor of the third party." Cain v. Griffin, 849 N.E.2d 507, 514 (Ind. 2006) (quoting OEC-Diasonics, Inc. v. Major, 674 N.E.2d 1312, 1315 (Ind. 1996)). The plaintiff made no factual allegations about the terms of the contract between Wexford and the Indiana Department of Correction, including any allegations that a clear purpose of the contract is to impose an obligation on one of the contracting parties in favor of the plaintiff.

SO ORDERED.