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.

Whorton v. Roggenbuck

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

November 7, 2017

JAMES WHORTON, Plaintiff,
v.
JOAN ROGGENBUCK, KIM FERRIS, SHANTHI GOPAL, JOE LAPUM, and ALFRED BROWN, Defendants.

          Gershwin A. Drain Judge.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT DEFENDANTS FARRIS AND GOPAL'S MOTION TO DISMISS (DE 23)

          ANTHONY P. PATTI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         I. RECOMMENDATION: The Court should GRANT Defendants' Farris and Gopal's motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. Rules Civ. P. 8 and 12(b)(6). (DE 23.)

         II. REPORT:

         A. Plaintiff's Complaint

         James Whorton is currently incarcerated at the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) Woodland Center Correctional Facility (WCC). (DE 34.) On October 27, 2016, while incarcerated at WCC, Plaintiff filed the instant, verified civil rights complaint in pro per against five defendants - Joan Roggenbuck, (Kim) Ferris, (Shanthi) Gopal, Joe Lapum and Alfred Brown - in their personal and official capacities. The facts underlying Plaintiff's complaint stem from the events of June 2014 and concern treatment he received following two self-inflicted cuts. (DE 1 ¶¶ 10-27.) Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. (DE 1 at 7-8.)[1]

         B. Instant Motion

         On June 14, 2017, Defendants Kim Farris, P.A., and Shanthi Gopal, M.D., filed a combined motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). (DE 23.) Judge Drain referred this motion to me for a report and recommendation. (DE 24.) Plaintiff filed a timely response on July 25, 2017, and Defendants Farris and Gopal filed a reply on August 2, 2017. (DEs 26-27.)

         C. Fed. Rules Civ. P. 8 and 12

         Defendants seek dismissal of Count I under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12(b)(6). (DE 23 at 3.) “A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (“Claim for Relief.”). In the case at bar, Defendants apparently contend that Plaintiff's complaint does not set forth “[a] short and plain statement of 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.