Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Perkins v. Princeton Community Hospital

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Bluefield

July 21, 2017

ETHELOMA RENEE PERKINS, Plaintiff,
v.
PRINCETON COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge

         By Standing Order, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of findings and recommendations regarding disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge VanDervort submitted to the court his Proposed Findings and Recommendations ("PF&R) on January 26, 2017, in which he recommended that the court (1) grant defendants' motion to dismiss.

         In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were allotted fourteen days plus three mailing days in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn's Findings and Recommendations. The failure of any party to file such objections within the time allowed constitutes a waiver of such party's right to a de novo review by this court. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff filed objections to the PF&R and defendants have responded to those objections. It is worth noting that this court need not conduct a de novo review when a party “makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). With respect to plaintiff's objections, where appropriate, the court has conducted a de novo review.

         As Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn noted, plaintiff's complaint arises out of defendants' part in submitting a certain document, an OIC-WC-1, to the West Virginia Workers' Compensation Bureau. According to plaintiff, the form contained “false and misleading assertions” that caused her claim for workers' compensation benefits to be denied. Plaintiff asserted the following claims or causes of actions against defendants:

1. Violation of her civil rights under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, having been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment;
2. Violation of her civil rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment;
3. Libel, slander, and defamation of character;
4. Intentional infliction of emotional distress;
5. Medical malpractice;
6. Negligence;
7. Deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs;
8. “Tortious actions against her”;
9. Violation of her rights to due process of law under the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.