Eduardo Diaz v. Dr. Marcus Moseley, M.D., No. 05-16293 (11th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 05-16293 ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT November 29, 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 04-03056-CV-BBM-1 EDUARDO DIAZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus DR. MARCUS MOSELEY, M.D., JOHN DOE #1, JOHN DOE #2, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _________________________ (November 29, 2006) Before BIRCH and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and PRESNELL,* District Judge. PER CURIAM: * Honorable Gregory A. Presnell, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. Eduardo Diaz, proceeding pro se, filed this ยง 1983 suit alleging civil rights violations by Defendant, Dr. Moseley, and other unidentified Defendants. He appeals the district court s (1) grant of summary judgment for Dr. Moseley, (2) dismissal of the claim for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, (3) denial of his motion for appointment of counsel, and (4) denial of his motion to compel discovery.1 After hearing oral argument and reviewing the record developed by Appellant proceeding pro se before the district court, we have determined the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to review the issues in this case.2 Where appellate review is hampered because the record is ambiguous due to 1 This Court is aware that on October 30, 2006, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the cases of Jones v. Bock, No. 03-2576, 2005 WL 1400205 (6th Cir. Jun. 15, 2005), cert. granted 126 S. Ct. 1462 (2006), argued Oct. 30, 2006, and Williams v. Overton, No. 03-2507 2005 WL 1513102, (6th Cir. Jun. 22, 2005), cert. granted 126 S. Ct. 1463 (2006), argued Oct. 30, 2006. 2 For example, we are not able to determine the factual basis for the exhaustion issues from the current record on appeal. 2 inadequate development of the critical facts, we have held it proper to remand to the district court. United States v. Robinson, 625 F.2d 1211, 1217 n.7 (11th Cir. 1980) (citations omitted).3 VACATED AND REMANDED. 3 The Court appreciates the fine representation of appellate appointed counsel and hopes he would consider accepting appointment to continue to represent Appellant in subsequent proceedings. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
