Allen v. East Alabama Medical Center et al (MAG+)

Filing 45

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/13/2012. (djy, )

Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION ERIC UNDRA ALLEN, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. EAST ALABAMA MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12cv485-MHT (WO) OPINION Plaintiff defendants filed this (physicians lawsuit and against health-care some 26 facilities) asserting that they failed to provide him with appropriate medical treatment for his physical condition. This lawsuit is now before the court on the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge that plaintiff’s case be dismissed. Also before the court are plaintiff’s objections to the recommendation. After an independent and de novo review of the record, the court concludes that plaintiff’s objections should be overruled magistrate judge’s recommendation adopted. and the See Mack v. City of High Springs, ___ Fed. App’x. ___, 2012 WL 3124565 (11th Cir. 2012) (affirming district court’s dismissal of pro se litigant’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for failure to state a claim where the plaintiff failed to allege facts suggesting that defendants discriminated against him due to his disability and observing that plaintiff’s conclusory allegations of discrimination are not sufficient to state a claim). Also before the court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint to add four more defendants to the original 26. (disregarding The facts alleged in the proposed amendment the conclusory statements) do not demonstrate plaintiff’s entitlement to relief under legal theory. Moreover, even if the facts alleged were sufficient to state a claim, the 26 defendants already named are not properly joined as defendants in the single lawsuit and the plaintiff now seeks to expand the lawsuit by misjoining four additional defendants. As to the four proposed defendants (three doctors and an MRI imaging 2 business in Birmingham, Alabama, all non-public-entity defendants), plaintiff is not entitled to damages under the ADA, and he has not alleged facts demonstrating state action for purposes of his constitutional claims. motion for leave to amend is due to be denied. An appropriate judgment will be entered. DONE, this the 13th day of November, 2012. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE The

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?