HASENBANK v. MAINE GENERAL HOSPITAL HARTHSIDE et al, No. 2:2023cv00029 - Document 18 (D. Me. 2023)
Court Description: AMENDED RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER PRELIMINARY REVIEW re 1 Complaint. Objections to R&R due by 5/11/2023. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAREN FRINK WOLF. (MGW)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
HASENBANK v. MAINE GENERAL HOSPITAL HARTHSIDE et al Doc. 18 Case 2:23-cv-00029-LEW Document 18 Filed 04/27/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 42 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE HERBERT REX HASENBANK JR., ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) ) MAINE GENERAL ) HOSPITAL et al., ) ) Defendants ) No. 2:23-cv-00029-LEW AMENDED RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER PRELIMINARY REVIEW I previously recommended that Herbert Rex Hasenbank Jr.’s medical malpractice claims against Maine General Hospital and Two Bridges Regional Jail be dismissed after preliminary review unless he amended his complaint to address the deficiencies I identified—namely, that he did not allege sufficient facts to establish diversity jurisdiction and that even if he intended to assert a federal constitutional claim his complaint was simply too vague to do so. See ECF No. 10. After the deadline 1 for amendment or objection passed, this Court received correspondence and an objection from Hasenbank that he mistakenly sent to state court. See ECF Nos. 16-17. In his objection, Hasenbank provides some additional allegations in an apparent attempt to bolster his complaint. See ECF No. 17. The deadline for amending and/or objecting was originally April 4, 2023, see ECF No. 10, but I extended it sua sponte to April 11, 2023, after receiving correspondence from Hasenbank that his address had changed, see ECF Nos. 11-13. This Court received the instant correspondence and objection from Hasenbank on April 24, 2023, after it was forwarded by the state court. See ECF Nos. 16-17. 1 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:23-cv-00029-LEW Document 18 Filed 04/27/23 Page 2 of 2 Given Hasenbank’s incarceration and related mailing PageID #: 43 difficulties, see ECF No. 16, I recommend that the Court consider his objection despite its untimeliness. Nevertheless, because the additional allegations that Hasenbank makes in his objection still do not establish diversity jurisdiction or flesh out a plausible federal claim, see ECF No. 17, I recommend that the Court DISMISS Hasenbank’s complaint for the same reasons I outlined in my original recommended decision, see ECF No. 10. Finally, Hasenbank is instructed to send any future filings he may wish to make in this matter to the following address: United States District Court 156 Federal Street Portland, ME 04101 NOTICE In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may serve and file an objection to this order within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to review by the District Court and to any further appeal of this order. Dated: April 27, 2023 /s/ Karen Frink Wolf United States Magistrate Judge 2
]]>
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.
