Lynn v. Ohio State University Medical Center et al

Filing 9

Opinion and Order : The objection (#8) to the 6 Report and Recommendation is OVERRULED and the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Judge James L Graham on 12/22/09. (rew)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Arthur Eugene Lynn, Plaintiff, v. Ohio State University Medical Center, et al., Defendants. : : : : : Case No. 2:09-cv-907

JUDGE GRAHAM

OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Arthur Eugene Lynn, who is a prisoner at the Marion Correctional Institution, submitted a complaint against The Ohio State University Medical Center and a John Doe and Jane Doe, described as a radiologist and a registered nurse. claims that the doctor and nurse were negligent in their treatment of him. On November 18, 2009, the Magistrate Judge Mr. Lynn has filed an For the following recommended dismissal of the complaint. He

objection to the Report and Recommendation.

reasons, and after a de novo review of the case, his objection will be overruled and this case will be dismissed without prejudice. The Report and Recommendation first concluded that Mr. Lynn could not sue the Ohio State University or its medical center in the United States District Court because of the jurisdictional bar found in the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Thorpe v. State of Ohio, 19 F.Supp. 2d 816, The federal courts are courts of The 820 n.6 (S.D. Ohio 1998).

limited, rather than general, jurisdiction, and not every case that has potential merit can be filed in a federal court. Eleventh Amendment is one of many restrictions on federal court jurisdiction, and prohibits certain suits - suits brought by a citizen of a state against the state itself - from being

prosecuted in a federal court, even if such a case could properly be filed in a state court. The Report and Recommendation notes that this Court has held, in prior cases, that the Ohio State University, as well as the University Hospital or Medical Center, are arms of the State of Ohio, and that these entities enjoy the same Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court as does the State of Ohio. See, e.g., Thomson v. Ohio State This is unquestionably a correct University Hosp., 5 F.Supp. 2d 574 (S.D. Ohio 1998), aff'd 238 F.3d 424 (6th Cir. 2000). statement of the law. Mr. Lynn argues in his objection that he did not intend to sue the State of Ohio, and that the mere fact that the hospital at which he received treatment has the words "State of Ohio" in its name should not make it part of the State. However, it is not the name that controls, but whether the hospital is part of a state university that is funded and controlled by the State of Ohio. The Ohio State University is considered part of the State of Ohio for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment, so any effort to sue the hospital itself is, from a legal standpoint, exactly the same as if the named defendant were the State of Ohio. Consequently, Mr. Lynn cannot sue the University Hospital or Medical Center in federal court. The only other defendants are the unnamed doctor and nurse, and the only claim asserted against them is for medical negligence or medical malpractice. Again, as correctly noted in the Report and Recommendation, these individuals cannot be sued by Mr. Lynn for medical malpractice (which is a claim based on state tort law) in a federal court. The federal court has jurisdiction to hear cases based purely on state law only if the parties to the case are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. State of Ohio. 28 U.S.C. §1332(a). Mr. Lynn and the two individual defendants are all citizens of the Consequently, there is no jurisdiction to hear -2-

Mr. Lynn's claims in the federal courts, although, again, these might be proper claims to file in a state court. For these reasons, the Court holds that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Mr. Lynn's claims do not fall within the limited jurisdiction of the United States District Courts. Therefore, the objection (#8) to the Report and Recommendation is OVERRULED and the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction. The Clerk shall mail a copy of the complaint and this dismissal order to the defendants.

Date: December 22, 2009

s/James L. Graham James L. Graham United States District Judge

-3-