Camp v. Northeast Ohio Neighborhood Health Services, Inc. et al, No. 1:2011cv01577 - Document 10 (N.D. Ohio 2011)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4 ) is DENIED as MOOT and plaintiff's request to dismiss her case pursuant to Rule 41(a) and pursue administrative remedies is GRANTED. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 9/19/11. (LC,S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Camp v. Northeast Ohio Neighborhood Health Services, Inc. et al Doc. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Vashalla Camp, Plaintiff, Vs. Northeast Ohio Neighborhood Health Services, Inc., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:11 CV 1577 JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN Memorandum of Opinion and Order INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court upon defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4). This is a medical malpractice case. For the reasons that follow, plaintiff’s alternative request to dismiss her case pursuant to Rule 41(a) and pursue administrative remedies is GRANTED. Defendant’s motion to dismiss is therefore MOOT. DISCUSSION Plaintiff, Vashalla Camp, filed this lawsuit against defendants, Northeast Ohio Neighborhood Health Services, Inc., NEON Superior Health Center, and several John/Jane Doe Defendants (collectively, “NEON”). Plaintiff alleges that on February 24, 2010, she appeared at 1 Dockets.Justia.com NEON for an appointment. While there, she received an injection intended for a different patient. Thereafter, she filed this lawsuit in state court. The sole count in the complaint is a claim for negligence. On August 1, 2011, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio certified that the defendants were acting within the scope of their authority as a deemed federal facility at the time of the incident. Accordingly, defendants removed this matter to federal court. Defendants now move to dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff opposes the motion and, in the alternative, requests that the Court allow plaintiff to seek leave to dismiss the complaint voluntarily in order to pursue administrative remedies. Defendants expressly indicate that they do not object to allowing plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss her case in order to pursue administrative remedies. As such, the Court will GRANT plaintiff’s alternative request. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) is DENIED as MOOT and plaintiff’s request to dismiss her case pursuant to Rule 41(a) and pursue administrative remedies is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Patricia A. Gaughan PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN United States District Judge Dated: 9/19/11 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.
