Fletcher v. United States of America et al
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 41 in full. Case is DISMISSED. Any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 11/14/2017. Mailed to Fletcher (TAG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
NOV 14 2017
Cle"!C, (!.S Diltrict Court
District Of Montana
PAUL HARTSON FLETCHER,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
United States Magistrate Judge John T. Johnston entered Findings and
Recommendations in this case on October 11, 201 7, recommending that this
matter be dismissed. Plaintiff Paul Hartson Fletcher ("Fletcher") filed a timely
objection to the Findings and Recommendations, and so is entitled to de novo
review of those findings and recommendations to which he specifically objects.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1 )(C). 1 This Court reviews for clear error those findings and
recommendations to which no party objects. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Clear error exists if the Court is left with a
Fletcher filed two objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Docs. 41, 43.)
"definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v.
Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
Judge Johnston concluded, and this Court agrees, that dismissal is
appropriate because Fletcher has failed to produce expert testimony as required
under Montana law regarding his claims of medical malpractice and lack of
informed consent. In his first objection, Fletcher states his disagreement with
Judge Johnston's findings, believes Judge Johnston's opinions are "tainted,
biased, and prejudicial," and contends that he is at a grave disadvantage in
prosecuting his case because he is incarcerated and is without representation.
(Doc. 41at2-3.) Defendant United States of America filed a response to
Fletcher's objection. (Doc. 42.) Defendant contends that Judge Johnston's
Findings and Recommendations should be adopted in full because it is supported
by the record and the law, and that Fletcher's motions for appointment of counsel
were properly denied. Fletcher filed his second objection on November 13, 2017,
and claims that he understands it is his burden to produce an expert witness but
that he is unable to do so because of his incarceration and pro se status. (Doc. 43
at 1.) He also asserts that the photo attached to his objection makes plain the fact
that his surgeon, Dr. Katie J. Kovacich-Smith was negligent.
First, Fletcher has failed to comply with Local Rule 72.3. He does not
identify the specific factual findings of Judge Johnston to which he objects, nor
does he set forth the proper authority to contradict Judge Johnston's
recommendation. His objections are nothing more than general statements that he
disagrees with Judge Johnston's conclusions. Regardless of his noncompliance
with Rule 72.3, Fletcher's claims fail on the merits. He failed to submit any expert
witness testimony to support his claims of malpractice regarding the standard of
care for podiatrists and whether that standard has been breached. Even though it
was not the Defendant's burden to produce such expert testimony, the United
States provided expert testimony regarding the standard of care for podiatrists and
that no violation of the standard of care occurred here. (Doc. 31-3.) Thus, Judge
Johnston correctly concluded based on this expert testimony that Dr. KovacichSmith did not violate the standard of care.
Fletcher's second objection rehashes his res ipsa loquitur argument. He
contends that the photo depicting his injury and infection post-surgery (marked as
Exhibit lOOB) indicates that his doctor was negligent and breached the standard of
care. However, this Court agrees with Judge Johnston's conclusion that under
Montana law, res ipsa loquitur may not be used to replace the Plaintiffs burden to
provide expert testimony regarding the standard of care and breach in a
malpractice case. Estate ofNielsen v. Pardis, 878 P.2d 234, 236 (Mont. 1994)
(citing Dalton v. Kalispell Reg. Hospital, 846 P.2d 960, 963 (Mont. 1993)).
Judge Johnston also properly denied Fletcher's motions for appointment of
counsel. Fletcher objects to this finding. (Doc. 41 at 3.) However, Fletcher does
not provide any additional reasons for the appointment of counsel. Thus, he has
not met his burden to prove that "exceptional circumstances" exist in this case or
that he is likely to succeed on the merits. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017
(9th Cir. 1991).
Finally, Fletcher contends the Judge Johnston is biased because he
erroneously reviewed the notes from Dr. Harkless, who made a reference to
Fletcher's felony sex offense in the "social history" portion of his expert report.
However, Judge Johnston makes no mention of Dr. Harkless in his Findings and
Recommendations, but instead relies on Dr. Ericksen's expert report which
identifies Fletcher's post-operative smoking and alcohol abuse as factors that
directly impacted the healing process following surgery. Thus, there is no
indication that Judge Johnston was biased whatsoever in relation to Fletcher's
prior felony sex offense when he issued his Order in this case.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Judge Johnston's Findings and
Recommendations (Doc. 40) are ADOPTED IN FULL. This case is DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to close the
case and enter judgment in favor of Defendant pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to have the
docket reflect that the Court certifies pursuant to Rule 24(a)(3)(A) of the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure that any appeal of this decision would not be taken
in good faith. No reasonable person could suppose an appeal would have merit.
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court
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?