STEVENS v. WALTS DRIVE-A-WAY et al

Filing 32

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE - On July 31, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim with respect to the remaining claims. 29 Plaintiff has not responded to this motion, nor did he appear at a status conference held before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr., on August 27, 2014. Having reviewed the District Court citations found in the Brief in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 30 , includingCarpenter v. Phillips, 419 Fed. Appx. 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011), the Court agrees that Plaintiff's claims under HIPPA are barred because in this particular case Plaintiff has failed to make a showing that Congress did intend to create a private right of action as a remedy under the HIPPA sta tute. Those claims are, therefore, DISMISSED with prejudice. Likewise, Plaintiff's claims brought under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1) must be brought against a federal agency. There is no private right of action under this statute against private individuals or corporations. These remaining claims are, therefore, DISMISSED with prejudice, as well. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 9/26/2014. (c/m) (NMT)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA EVANSVILLE DIVISION SHAWN STEVENS, Plaintiff, v. WALTS DRIVE-A-WAY and DONALD MEISLER, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 3:13-cv-175-TWP-WGH Order Dismissing Case With Prejudice On June 27, 2014, this Court’s Entry granted in part and denied in part the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. (Dkt. No. 26.) In that Entry, Plaintiff was granted until July 11, 2014, to amend his complaint to include allegations that, if true, would entitle him to relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Mr. Stevens has not filed an amended complaint, and the Court therefore DISMISSES with prejudice those claims at this time. On July 31, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim with respect to the remaining claims. (Dkt. No. 29.) Plaintiff has not responded to this motion, nor did he appear at a status conference held before Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr., on August 27, 2014. Having reviewed the District Court citations found in the Brief in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 30), including Carpenter v. Phillips, 419 Fed. Appx. 658, 659 (7th Cir. 2011), the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s claims under HIPPA are barred because in this particular case Plaintiff has failed to make a showing that Congress did intend to create a private right of action as a remedy under the HIPPA statute. Those claims are, therefore, DISMISSED with prejudice. Likewise, Plaintiff’s claims brought under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1) must be brought against a federal agency. There is no private right of action under this statute against private individuals or corporations. These remaining claims are, therefore, DISMISSED with prejudice, as well. SO ORDERED. Date: 9/26/2014 Distribution: Shawn Stevens 400 Richardson Ave Apt. #9 Henderson, KY 42420 Mary Lee Schiff ZIEMER STAYMAN WEITZEL & SHOULDERS P O Box 916 Evansville, IN 47706-0916 Wm. Michael Schiff ZIEMER STAYMAN WEITZEL & SHOULDERS P O Box 916 Evansville, IN 47706-0916 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?