Manriquez-Servin et al v. Grant et al

Filing 19

ORDER: Granting 16 Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant Robert Roy Grant: Defendant Grant is dismissed from this case: The case will continue only against the United States. Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett on 09/12/16. (kfs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
WESTERN DIVISION
J.H.M., by his Next Friend and Mother,
Guadalupe Manriquez-Servin,
GUADALUPE MANRIQUEZ-SERVIN,
Individually, and GERARDO
HERNANDEZ RIVERA,
No. C 15-4216-MWB
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ROBERT ROY GRANT, M.D., and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT
GRANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

___________________________
This medical malpractice case pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) is
before me on defendant Robert Roy Grant’s August 11, 2016, Motion For Summary
Judgment (docket no. 16). Dr. Grant seeks summary judgment on the ground that the
plaintiffs have failed to generate any required expert testimony to support the medical
negligence claims against him and that, without such expert testimony, they cannot
establish the standard of care or breach of that standard, so that their claims against him
necessarily fail. On September 6, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Response To Defendant
Robert Roy Grant, M.D.’s Motion For Summary Judgment (docket no. 17), stating that
they sought permission of the other parties to voluntarily dismiss Dr. Grant from the
case, but the United States would not agree to that. They state, “Because Plaintiffs were
of the mind to voluntarily dismiss Dr. Robert Roy Grant following depositions, they offer
no response to Defendant Robert Roy Grant, M.D.’s Motion For Summary Judgment.”
Plaintiffs’ Response at 2. On September 9, 2016, the defendant United States filed a

Statement Of No Resistance Pursuant To Local Rule 56(c) (docket no. 18), stating that it
does not resist Dr. Grant’s Motion For Summary Judgment. Because no party opposes
summary judgment in favor of Dr. Grant, and no party has identified any genuine issue
of material fact that would preclude summary judgment in his favor, I find that
Dr. Grant’s Motion For Summary Judgment should be granted. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56;
Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042-43 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc).
THEREFORE, defendant Robert Roy Grant’s August 11, 2016, Motion For
Summary Judgment (docket no. 16) is granted. Defendant Grant is dismissed from this
case. This case will continue only against the United States.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 12th day of September, 2016.

______________________________________
MARK W. BENNETT
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

2