Jimmy Chip E v. Beverly Buscemi
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:10-cv-00767-TMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [15-1039]
Pg: 1 of 5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JIMMY CHIP E,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
MICHELLE M; PETER B; KAREN W,
BEVERLY BUSCEMI; KELLY FLOYD; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, The; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF DISABILITIES AND SPECIAL NEEDS, The; ANTHONY KECK;
Defendants – Appellees,
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge; Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (6:10-cv-00767-TMC)
April 21, 2016
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
April 29, 2016
Pg: 2 of 5
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patricia Logan Harrison, Columbia, South Carolina; Kenneth C.
Anthony, Jr., ANTHONY LAW FIRM, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for
Appellant. William H. Davidson, II, Kenneth P. Woodington,
DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 3 of 5
Jimmy Chip E (“Chip”), a participant in South Carolina’s
Medicaid waiver program, appeals from the district court’s order
dismissing his claims as moot.
We have reviewed the parties’
briefs and the joint appendix, and we find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by
the district court.
E v. Buscemi, No. 6:10-cv-00767-TMC (D.S.C.
Mar. 7, 2013).
We address two issues separately.
First, Chip contends
that he has a right to receive services ordered by his treating
physician and that Defendants’ failure to promptly provide such
services violates the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a (2012),
and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012).
As a result, Chip asserts that
this portion of his complaint was improperly dismissed.
claim is without merit for several reasons.
First, Chip rests his claim on a one-page 2010 affidavit
from his treating physician.
This does not purport to be an
“order,” nor does it state that, in the absence of the specific
care recommended, Chip would face risk of institutionalization.
(providing that the treating physician should be consulted in
determining a care plan); see also Moore ex rel. Moore v. Reese,
Pg: 4 of 5
637 F.3d 1220, 1255 (11th Cir. 2011) (holding that a private
physician’s word is “not dispositive”).
requested any additional services.
Finally, there is no
Had he done so, any denial
or unreasonable delay would be subject to review through the
Doe v. Kidd, 501 F.3d 348, 351-52 (4th Cir. 2007) (describing
Next, Chip raised a claim that his due process rights were
violated when he did not receive the proper notification and
hearing prior to the denial, reduction, or termination of his
Jourdan v. Equitable Equip. Co., 889 F.2d 637, 640
resolved in Chip’s favor, and his services were not reduced.
process claims in his administrative appeal and received proper
Because Chip has alleged no injury personal to him, his
claim is without merit.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Pg: 5 of 5
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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.
Why Is My Information Online?