Wood v. Jackson Hospital et al

Filing 40

OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED that: (1) The 39 objections to the recommendation are overruled as moot, because the court has decided not to take up the supplemental-jurisdiction issue at this time; (2) The magistrate judge's 38 recomme ndation is adopted to the extent discussed above; (3) The dfts' 9 , 12 , & 13 motions to dismiss are granted without prejudice to plf filing an amended complaint; (4) Plf is granted leave to file an amended complaint by no later than 3/20/20 18; (5) The dfts' 29 motion to strike and plf's 37 motion for extension of time are denied as moot; This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/6/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist) (wcl, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
FREDDIE EUGENE WOOD,
Plaintiff,
v.
JACKSON HOSPITAL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:17cv494-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit bringing 12 state-law
claims,

including

fraudulent
infliction

negligence,

negligent

misrepresentation,
of

emotional

supervision,

libel,

distress,

and

negligent
tortious

interference with a business relationship, and naming as
defendants a hospital, physicians employed there, the
state medical examiner’s board, and its investigator; the
claims stem from a series of events that began with a
visit to the emergency room where plaintiff was denied
care and spiraled out from there.

Plaintiff also brings

two federal claims: one under the Social Security Act,

42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, alleging that he was denied care in
violation of the statute, and one claim for disability
discrimination, which appears to contend that all of the
defendants discriminated against him on the basis of
disability.

This lawsuit is before the court on the

recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge that
defendants’

motions

to

dismiss

be

granted

without

prejudice to plaintiff filing an amended complaint within
10 days of any order adopting the recommendation; that
defendants’ motion to strike and plaintiff’s motion for
extension of time to file an amended complaint be denied
as

moot;

and

supplemental

that

the

court

jurisdiction

over

decline
the

to

state-law

exercise
claims.

Also before the court are defendants’ objections to the
recommendation
jurisdiction

that
over

the
the

court

decline

state-law

to

claims.

exercise
Upon

an

independent and de novo review of the record, the court
concludes

that

the

magistrate

judge’s

recommendation

adopted as to the resolution of the motions in part.
2

However, as the amended complaint will likely assist the
court in determining the extent to which the state-law
claims predominate over the federal claims, the court
declines to dismiss the state-law claims at this time.
***
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
(1) The objections to the recommendation (doc. no.
39) are overruled as moot, because the court has decided
not to take up the supplemental-jurisdiction issue at
this time.
(2) The magistrate judge’s recommendation (doc. no.
38) is adopted to the extent discussed above.
(3) The defendants’ motions to dismiss (doc. nos. 9,
12, and 13) are granted without prejudice to plaintiff
filing an amended complaint.
(4) Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended
complaint by no later than March 20, 2018.

3

(5) The defendants’ motion to strike (doc. no. 29)
and plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (doc. no.
37) are denied as moot.
This case is referred back to the magistrate judge
for further proceedings.
DONE, this the 6th day of March, 2018.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE