Austin, et al v. SecureCare Inc, et al

Filing 920081222

Opinion

Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 08a0775n.06 Filed: December 22, 2008 No. 07-1600 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT PATRICIA AUSTIN Plaintiff, DENNIS MCLAIN, as personal representative of the Estate of Anthony Gilhouse Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECURECARE, INCORPORATED; KATHY HEBERT-LAGINESS, R.N.; ANNE LATULIPGARIEPY; DARYL TYRONE PARKER, M.D.; JAMES GARRETT Defendants-Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN BEFORE: Daughtrey, Rogers, Circuit Judges, and Restani,* Judge. ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Dennis McLain, on behalf of the Estate of Anthony Gilhouse, appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants SecureCare, Inc., Daryl Tyrone Parker, M.D., James Garrett, R.N., Anne Latulip-Gariepy, L.P.N., and Kathy Hebert-Laginess, R.N. Plaintiff brought this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging violations The Hon. Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. * No. 07-1600 Austin v. Secure Care, Inc., et al. of Gilhouse's Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiff claims that defendants' deliberate indifference to Gilhouse's serious medical needs resulted in Gilhouse's death from an asthma attack. After reviewing the record, the parties' briefs, and the applicable law, and hearing oral argument, this court determines that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a panel opinion and affirms the district court's decision for the reasons stated in Judge Edmunds' April 24, 2007, opinion and order. The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of all remaining defendants. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed. -2-

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?