Kirkland v. Raleigh General Hospital

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 9 Proposed Findings and Recommendations, denying Plaintiff's 7 Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, dismissing Plaintiff's 6 and 8 Amended Complaint, and dismissing the matter; denying as moot Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Change of Venue and 14 Motion to Change Venue from Southern District of West Virginia to Maryland District Court, Baltimore, Maryland. Signed by Chief Judge Frank W. Volk on 3/10/2025. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (btm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BECKLEY
TOUSSAINT N. KIRKLAND,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-00350

BECKLEY APPALACHIAN HOSPITAL,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending are Plaintiff Toussaint N. Kirkland’s (1) Motion to Proceed Without
Prepayment of Fees and Costs [ECF 7], filed August 9, 2024, (2) Amended Complaint [ECF 6 and
8], filed August 9, 2024, (3) Motion for Change of Venue [ECF 11], filed October 21, 2024, and
(4) Motion to Change Venue from Southern District of West Virginia to Maryland District Court
[ECF 14], filed December 16, 2024.
I.
Mr. Kirkland instituted this action on July 12, 2024, alleging that Defendant
Beckley Appalachian Hospital misdiagnosed him, causing life-threatening injuries. [ECF 1]; see
also [ECF 6 and 8]. The case was previously referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United
States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”).
[ECF 2]. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on August 19, 2024. [ECF 9]. Magistrate
Judge Aboulhosn recommended the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment
of Fees and Costs [ECF 7], dismiss the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [ECF 6 and 8], and remove

the matter from the Court’s docket. [ECF 9 at 8]. Mr. Kirkland timely filed his objection on August
29, 2024. [ECF 10].
II.
The Court need not review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or
legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation
to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the
report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” (emphasis
added)).
“Importantly, objections need not be novel to be sufficiently specific.”
Elijah v. Dunbar, 66 F.4th 454, 460 (4th Cir. 2023). “[T]o preserve for appeal an issue in a
magistrate judge's report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with
sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.”
United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007). “If the grounds for objection are
clear, district court judges must consider them de novo, or else run afoul of both § 636(b)(1) and
Article III.” Elijah, 66 F.4th at 460. Further, the Court need not conduct de novo review when a
party “makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the Court to a specific error in
the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47
(4th Cir. 1982).
III.
Mr. Kirkland alleges he was misdiagnosed by Beckley Appalachian Hospital
“[which] caused . . . life [threatening] injuries . . . .” [ECF 6 at 4]. He further alleges “Beckley
Appalachian Hospital showed [Deliberate] Indifference . . . .” [Id. at 5]. Although not specifically

2

alleged, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn construed Mr. Kirkland’s claim as one under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. [ECF 9 at 6].
After an exhaustive review, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn concluded subject matter
jurisdiction was lacking inasmuch as (1) complete diversity was absent, and (2) Beckley
Appalachian Hospital and its agents were not acting “under color of law” so as to give rise to a §
1983 claim. [Id. at 5–7].
In his objections, Mr. Kirkland emphasizes he was “living in West Virginia at a
federal institution . . . .” [Id. at 2]. That point does not impair the magistrate judge’s analysis.
IV.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [EFC 9], DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion
to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees and Costs [ECF 7], DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint [ECF 6 and 8], and DISMISSES the matter. Further, Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of
Venue [ECF 11] and Motion to Change Venue from Southern District of West Virginia to
Maryland District Court [ECF 14] are DENIED AS MOOT.
The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record
and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

3

March 10, 2025