Wood v. Jackson Hospital et al (MAG2), No. 2:2017cv00494 - Document 83 (M.D. Ala. 2018)

Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/27/2018. (wcl, )

Download PDF
Wood v. Jackson Hospital et al (MAG2) Doc. 83 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION FREDDIE EUGENE WOOD, Plaintiff, v. JACKSON HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17cv494-MHT (WO) OPINION Pursuant to a variety of federal statutes and state law, plaintiff filed this lawsuit against a number of healthcare providers and the state medical board and its investigator contending that defendants discriminated against him on the basis of disability, committed fraud, libeled him, acted with negligence, and illegally denied him and/or tortuously interfered with his efforts to obtain medical care. court on the This lawsuit is now before the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge that defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiff’s case be granted as to his federal claims, and Dockets.Justia.com that the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claims. before the court are plaintiff’s objections Also to the of the recommendation. After an independent and de novo review record, the court concludes that plaintiff’s objections should be overruled and recommendation adopted. the magistrate judge’s A few points are worth noting. First, while plaintiff states that he wants to file a second amended complaint, he has never filed a motion to do so. Second, plaintiff objected that it was not clear that the magistrate judge had listened to the recording he submitted as an exhibit to the first complaint, see Exhibit D (doc. no. 43-5). listened to the recording plaintiff amended The court has submitted as an exhibit to the first amended complaint, and it does not change the outcome of this case. court here, as a matter of Finally, while the discretion, declines to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state-law claims 2 due to the dismissal of all federal claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court in any case would not have jurisdiction over the state-law claims against the state medical board and its employee in his official capacity; assuming the state medical board is an arm of the State, the Eleventh Amendment would prevent this court from hearing those claims. v. Halderman, 465 See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. U.S. 89 106 (1984) (the Eleventh Amendment bars the adjudication of pendent state-law claims against nonconsenting state defendants in federal court); Raygor v. Regents of Univ. of Minnesota, 534 U.S. 533, 542 (2002) (28 U.S.C. § 1367(a)'s grant of supplemental jurisdiction does not extend to state-law claims against nonconsenting state defendants.) An appropriate judgment will be entered. DONE, this the 27th day of September, 2018. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.