Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Lytle v. United States, 5:18-59-KKC-HAI. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. Kentucky Number: infdco20190918919 Visitors: 17
Filed: Sep. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 17, 2019
Summary: ORDER KAREN K. CALDWELL , District Judge . This matter is before the court on the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for summary judgment and the magistrate judge's recommendation that the motion for summary judgment be granted (DE 39). Former prisoner Alvin Lytle brought this pro se action on February 12, 2018, alleging that he received improper medical care at the Federal Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky (DE 1). Plaintiff's complaint appears
More

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for summary judgment and the magistrate judge's recommendation that the motion for summary judgment be granted (DE 39).

Former prisoner Alvin Lytle brought this pro se action on February 12, 2018, alleging that he received improper medical care at the Federal Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky (DE 1). Plaintiff's complaint appears to assert two types of claims: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against Dr. Terre Adams and Practitioner Tony Banta, two employees of the Medical Center; and medical malpractice claims against the United States pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. 1346 (DE 1). On October 23, 2018, the Court granted, in part, Defendant's motion for summary judgment, leaving only the medical malpractice claims (DE 35). The Court then referred this matter to the magistrate judge "to conduct all further pretrial proceedings, including overseeing discovery and preparing proposed findings of fact and recommendations on any future dispositive motions." (Id. at 9-10).

On April 8, 2019, the Defendant filed a timely motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for summary judgment (DE 38), and Plaintiff failed to respond within the time set by the Scheduling Order (DE 36). Construing the motion as one for summary judgment, the magistrate judge entered a recommendation that Defendant's motion be granted (DE 39). Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the recommendation. Further, the Court has reviewed the recommendation and agrees with its analysis.

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

1) the Recommended Disposition (DE 39) is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion; 2) Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; 3) a judgment consistent with this order and the Recommended Disposition will be entered.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer