District Court, S.D. Georgia — appointed by Richard Nixon
Abel v. Lappin
District Court, S.D. Georgia · 2009-09-24 · cited 3×
In this Bivens action, an inmate at FCI Jesup sued numerous Bureau of Prisons officials, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by delaying a liver biopsy and follow-up treatment for hepatitis C, as well as retaliation through transfers and denial of care in response to his grievances. The magistrate judge recommended granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact only as to the retaliation claims against defendants Vasquez, Wheeler, Shaw, Sumner, Burgos, and Ellis while dismissing the remaining claims, including most deliberate indifference and conspiracy allegations. The district court adopted the report and recommendation in full after determining it was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, thereby overruling the parties' objections and allowing only those specific retaliation claims to proceed. The core reasoning centered on the sufficiency of evidence under the applicable standards for Eighth Amendment and First Amendment retaliation claims in the prison context.
criminal lawcivil rightshealthcareprocedure
Mascarenas v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.
District Court, S.D. Georgia · 2009-07-24 · cited 6×
In this case, plaintiffs sued Cooper Tire & Rubber Company and Ford Motor Company under state tort law after a tire tread separation on a 2000 Mercury Mountaineer caused a rollover accident on Interstate 95, resulting in one death and one injury. The district court considered the defendants' motions for summary judgment and granted them in part while denying them in part. Cooper received summary judgment on the manufacturing defect, negligent testing, and misrepresentation claims, while Ford prevailed on the negligent failure to warn claim and several other independent theories; the court found no viable claims against Ford for negligent testing, inspection, assembly, marketing, advertising, labeling, or misrepresentation under Georgia law. In all other respects, including design defect claims and punitive damages, the court held that genuine issues of material fact remained in dispute, precluding summary judgment. The decision applied the summary judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Georgia product liability principles, evaluating evidence such as expert testimony on alleged defects.
torts & liability
Deen v. Egleston
District Court, S.D. Georgia · 2009-02-13 · cited 3×
In Deen v. Egleston, plaintiffs sued a dentist alleging medical malpractice, negligence per se, simple negligence, constructive fraud, and loss of consortium after the patient developed a severe brain infection following dental treatment for an infected tooth in 2005, resulting in his incapacitation. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment in part, ruling that the evidence was insufficient to support the constructive fraud claim and that the simple negligence and negligence per se claims were actually medical malpractice claims subject to the applicable limitations period. The court denied the motion in part, holding that Georgia Code section 9-3-73 is unconstitutional as applied to the incapacitated plaintiff because it violates equal protection by barring claims without regard to the plaintiff's lack of notice or ability to act through a next friend.
healthcareproceduretorts & liability
Muhs v. River Rats, Inc.
District Court, S.D. Georgia · 2008-11-18 · cited 6×
In Muhs v. River Rats, Inc., plaintiff Gary Muhs sued marina operator River Rats, Two-Way Boatyard, Rick Smith, and boat seller Lamar Welch, asserting negligence and unseaworthiness claims after he suffered severe burns in a boat fire at the marina while fueling a vessel he was purchasing. The district court ruled on defendants' summary judgment motions and plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. The court denied summary judgment in part for River Rats, Two-Way Boatyard, and Welch because some evidence indicated they might be liable for certain acts of negligence, but granted it in part for other negligence claims lacking supporting evidence; it granted Smith's motion because no evidence supported piercing the corporate veil, and denied the motion to amend because it was vague and indefinite. These rulings rested on whether genuine issues of material fact existed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
torts & liabilityprocedure
Brown v. CAMDEN COUNTY, GA.
District Court, S.D. Georgia · 2008-10-15 · cited 1×
The case involved plaintiff Malissa Brown suing Camden County, its sheriff, a deputy sheriff, and a meat supplier after her arrest and detention on charges of deposit account fraud and theft by taking stemming from three postdated checks she wrote to the supplier for wholesale meat purchases. The court addressed the defendants' motions for summary judgment on Brown's federal and state claims, including unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, as well as the deputy's motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds. It granted summary judgment in part and denied it in part, finding that a jury could conclude the arrest lacked probable cause because the checks were postdated with the supplier's agreement and the supplier may not have sent the precise statutory notice required under Georgia Code § 16-9-20 before seeking warrants. The court denied the deputy's qualified immunity motion because the evidence, viewed favorably to Brown, indicated he may have violated clearly established law regarding probable cause for the arrest. Some claims against the county and sheriff were barred as a matter of law.
criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure
US Ex Rel. Whitten v. COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS
District Court, S.D. Georgia · 2008-08-05
This case involves a qui tam action under the False Claims Act brought by relator Ted Whitten against Quorum Health Resources and related entities, alleging that Quorum caused the submission of false Medicare claims for services at two Georgia hospitals it managed from 1997 to 2000, including improper billing for equipment, observation-area tests, cardiac rehabilitation, and mental health services. The court addressed Quorum's renewed motion, which it converted to one for summary judgment. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the settled observation-area claims that the government had already resolved through a settlement with the hospitals. It denied the motion in part as to the remaining unsettled observation-area claims and other alleged schemes, finding genuine issues of material fact in dispute that precluded summary judgment.
healthcareprocedure