Hobbs v. United States of America

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION. Signed by Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn on 8/4/15. (MRR)

FILED
2015 Aug-04 AM 11:32
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
ORLANDO HOBBS,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 1:14-cv-00401-SLB-JEO
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation on June 18, 2015,
recommending that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s
Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) claims be granted and this cause be dismissed
with prejudice. (Doc. 39). The plaintiff filed objections on July 10, 2015. (Doc. 42).
In his objections, the plaintiff merely reasserts his claims that medical
providers negligently treated his back condition. (Id.) The plaintiff again argues that
the court should have required Dr. Holbrook, Dr. O’Malley, and Dr. Robinson to
serve as his expert witnesses. (Doc. 42 at 2, 4). However, Dr. Holbrook and Dr.
Robinson submitted sworn declarations in which they state the plaintiff’s medical
treatment was within the appropriate standard of care. (Doc. 12-3 at 6, Holbrook
Decl. at ¶ 14; Doc. 12-4 at 3, Robinson Decl. at ¶ 5). These doctors cannot be
directed to provide testimony contrary to their sworn declarations to benefit the

plaintiff. Neither has the plaintiff pointed to any authority directing the court to
provide for or compel an expert to testify on his behalf. Because the plaintiff has not
come forward with expert testimony to establish the applicable standard of care and
how the care he received breached that standard, his FTCA claims necessarily fail.
See Cobb v. Fisher, 20 So. 3d 1253, 1257-58 (Ala. 2009).
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court
file, including the report and recommendation and the objections filed by the plaintiff,
the court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s report is due to be and is hereby
ADOPTED and his recommendation is ACCEPTED. The court EXPRESSLY
FINDS that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the defendant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for
summary judgment is due to be GRANTED and this action is due to be DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE. A Final Judgment will be entered.
DATED this the 4th day of August, 2015.

SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE