Kinsman v. Naphcare, Inc. et al

Filing 22

ORDER granting 15 Motion to Dismiss Claims against Naphcare. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 3/22/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Donald Kinsman, 4 2:17-cv-0152-JAD-NJK Plaintiff Order Granting Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Claims against Naphcare 5 v. 6 Naphcare, Inc., et al., [ECF No. 15] 7 Defendants 8 Plaintiff Donald Kinsman, who is represented by counsel, sues various entities for the 9 10 medical care he was denied during his detention at the Clark County Detention Center. 11 Naphcare, Inc., the entity that provides medical services for the jail, moves to dismiss all claims 12 against it, primarily because Kinsman appears to have pled medical-malpractice claims without 13 providing the medical-expert affidavit required by NRS 41A.071, and because it also appears that 14 he is pleading a deliberate-indifference-to-serious-medical-needs claim under § 1983 without 15 pleading facts to support it.1 Kinsman’s opposition to the motion was due by March 7, 2017. He 16 has not opposed the motion, and the deadline for response passed without any request for an 17 extension. Local Rule 7-2(d) states that the “failure of an opposing party to file points and 18 authorities in response to” a motion to dismiss “constitutes a consent to the granting of the 19 motion.”2 I invoke LR 7-2(d) and deem Kinsman’s failure to oppose this motion to dismiss as 20 consent to granting the motion. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Naphcare’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 15] is 21 22 GRANTED; all claims against Naphcare are DISMISSED; DATED: March 22, 2017 23 _______________________________ Jennifer A. Dorsey United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 1 ECF No. 15. 2 Nev. L.R. 7-2(d). See also notice of non-opposition at ECF No. 21.

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?