Dickerson v. DeMasters et al, No. 7:2019cv00493 - Document 3 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 07/12/2019. (aab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERKS OFFICe U.S.DIST.GOURT AT O ANOKE,VA FILED IN TIIE U N ITED STA TES D ISTR ICT COU RT F0R THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION JUL 12 2215 JUL c YY; D cuaRj ' J f CAM ERON DREW DICKERSON, CivilAction No.7:19CV00493 Plainti/ M EM ORANDUM OPIM ON GEM LD D EM ASTER S,eta1., By:Hon.Glen E.Conrad SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge D efendants. Cnmeron brew Dickerson,proceeding pro K ,comm enced tMs action by filing a form . ComplaintforaCivilCaseAllegingNegligenceagainstGerald DeM asters,Erwin Fender,Jeffrey Horton,and HospitalCorporation ofAm erica-virginia. Theplaintiffhasnotpaid the fling fee butwillbe g' ranted leave to proceed Lq forma pauperis forpurposes of initialreview ofl' lis complaint. Forthe following reasons,the courtconcludesthatthe case mustbe dism issed for failuretostateaclaimqpursuantto28U.S.C.j1915@)(2)(B)andFederalRuleofCivilProcedure 12(h)(3). B ackzround Theplaintiffisa residentofChristiansbtlrg,Virginia. Hisform complaintindicatesthat he received treatm entatLewis Gale M edicalCenter in Salem ,Virgizlia in July of2017. The plaintiff alleges that Fender and Horton EErefused to facilitate proper m edicalcare,''and that Dickerson v. DeMasters et al Doc. 3 DeM asters refused to filla prescription forcontactlensesand engaged in otherRtmprofessional conduct'' The plaintiff seeks to recover $21,000,000 for the individual defendants' alleged negligence. Dockets.Justia.com Standard ofR eview Under28U.S.C.j1915(e),whichgovem sLq formapauperisproceedings,thecourthasa mandatorydutyto screen initialfilings. ErilineCo.S.A.v.Johnson,440F.3d 648,656-57(4th Cir.2006). Thecourtmustdismissacaseççatanytime''ifthecourtdeterminesthatthecomplaint itfailsto state a claim on wllich reliefmay be granted.'' 28 U.S.C.j 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). To survivedism issalforfailureto stateaclaim,acomplaintmustcontain sttfficientfactualallegations $%o raisearightto reliefabovethespeculative level''and tttostateaclaim to reliefthatisplausible onitsface.'' BellAtl.Cop .v.Twombly,550U.S.544,555,570(2007). Additionally,ptlrsuanttoRule 12(h)(3)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,thecourt tçmustdismiss''an action tçliqfthe courtdetermines at any time thatit lacks subject-matter jmisdiction.'' Fed.R.Civ.P.1241$(3). çW ccordingly,questionsofsubject-matterjurisdiction mayberaisedatanypointdtldngtheproceedingsandmay(or,moreprecisely,must)beraisedsua spontebythecourt.'' BrickwoodConkactors.Inc.v.DatanetEng'g.Inc.,369F.3d385,390(4th Cir.2004). Discussion Federaldistrictcourtsarecourtsoflimitedjudsdiction. çç-l-heypossessonly thatpower authodzed by Constimtion and statute.'' Kokkonen v.Guardian Life lns.Co.ofAm .,511 U.S. 375,377 (1994). Generally,a case can be filed in a federaldistrictcourtifthere is federal questionjurisdictionunder28U.S.C.j 1331ordiversityjlzrisdictionunder28U.S.C.j1332. Having reviewed thecom plaint,the courtconcludesthatitmustbe dism issed forlack of subject matterjudsdiction. The form complaint invokes the court's diversity judsdiction. However,the plaintiffhas failed to dem onstrate thatcomplete diversity of citizenship exists between theparties asrequired by j 1332. To the contrary,the plaintiffstatesthata11three 2 individualdefendants are citizens ofVirginia,and thatthe corporate defendant is incop orated tmderthe lawsofVirginiaandhasitsprincipalplaceofbusinessintheComm onwea1th. Because theplaintiffisalsoacitizenofVirginia,diversityjmisdictionislacking. The complaintdoesnotinvokethe court'sfederalquestion jurisdiction. Ih any event, even tmderthe m ostliberalconstruction,the plaintifffailsto state a plausible claim tmderany federalstattltory orconstim tionalprovision. Having determ ined thatthecomplaintfailgto state a claim tmderfederal1aw andthatdiversityjurisdictionislacking,itfollowsthatthecasemustbe dism issed. C onclusion Forthereasonsstated,thecourtwillgranttheplaintiY smotion forleavetoproceed Lq form a pauperis. However, the complaint will be dism issed plzrsuant to 28 U.S.C. j 1915(e)(2)(B)andFederalRuleofCivilProcedtlre12(h)(3). The Clerk isdirected to send copiesofthism emorandllm opinion and the accompanying orderto theplaintiff. DATED:This M day ofJuly, 2019. SerliorUnited StatesDistrictJudge
]]>
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.
