Hutchinson Consultants, PC, et al v. John or Jane Doe, et al, No. 15-11817 (11th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-11817 Date Filed: 12/17/2015 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-11817 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-03560-WSD HUTCHINSON CONSULTANTS, PC, DR. LESLIE HUTCHINSON, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus FEDERAL OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, et al, Defendants, JOHN OR JANE DOE, an employee of Federal Occupational Health, a Non-Appropriated Agency within the United States Department of Health and Human Services, in his or her individual capacity, TISHA MARIE TITUS, M.D., RICHARD J. MILLER, M.D., Defendants – Appellees, STG INTERNATIONAL, INC., Interested Party. Case: 15-11817 Date Filed: 12/17/2015 Page: 2 of 3 ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________ (December 17, 2015) Before WILSON and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and BUCKLEW,∗ District Judge. PER CURIAM: This case came before the Court for oral argument. The appeal presented the following issues: (1) Whether Plaintiffs pleaded facts sufficient to allege deprivation of a property interest in violation of the substantive component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (2) Whether Hutchinson pleaded facts sufficient to allege Defendants deprived him of his liberty interest in reputation in violation of the substantive component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (3) Whether Plaintiffs pleaded facts sufficient to allege deprivation of a property interest and liberty interest without adequate process in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. ∗ Honorable Susan C. Bucklew, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. 2 Case: 15-11817 Date Filed: 12/17/2015 Page: 3 of 3 (4) Whether Plaintiffs pleaded facts sufficient to allege violation of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. (5) Whether the district court erred in dismissing as moot Plaintiffs’ Motion to Join STG as a Necessary Party and Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint. (6) Whether the district court erred in dismissing defendant Doe. (7) Whether the district court erred in failing to provide Plaintiffs with additional opportunity to be heard before issuing its basis for dismissal. (8) Whether qualified immunity insulates the remaining Defendants from suit. After carefully considering the law, the record, the parties’ briefs, and after oral argument, we hold there is no reversible error. AFFIRMED. 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.
