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.

Sharrik Molley v. Cfg Health Systems

April 3, 2012

SHARRIK MOLLEY,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CFG HEALTH SYSTEMS, ET AL, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hillman, District Judge

OPINION

Before the Court are two motions filed by defendant CFG Health Systems("CFG"): 1) motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c); and 2) motion to dismiss for plaintiff's failure to advise of change of address pursuant to L.Civ.R. 10.1(a), and failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). For the reasons expressed below, defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings will be granted, and its motion to dismiss will be denied as moot.

I. BACKGROUND

On October 13, 2010, plaintiff filed a complaint stating that while an inmate at the Atlantic County Justice Facility he was not permitted to attend his appointments with his neurologist or be able to attend physical therapy sessions. Plaintiff also states that he did not receive his medication for high blood pressure or have access to a "cardiac diet." Plaintiff further states that he has been in extreme pain in his back, neck and left leg due to a automobile accident that occurred on June 15, 2010. Plaintiff brought a claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.

On September 7, 2011, defendant sent a notice of deposition to plaintiff at the Atlantic City Justice Center. When counsel for defendant contacted the Atlantic City Justice Center on October 20, 2011 to confirm the deposition, he was advised by Lt. Iulicci that plaintiff had been released on September 27, 2011.

Plaintiff has not updated his current address with the Court as required by Local Rule 10.1(a). Defendant states that plaintiff has also failed to provide executed authorization forms to request medical records, and has failed to answer interrogatories and request for documents.

CFG filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c), and a motion to dismiss for plaintiff's failure to advise of change of address pursuant to

L.Civ.R. 10.1(a), and failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Plaintiff filed no response to either motion. We first address defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Because the Court will grant this motion, there is no need to address defendant's second motion.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Jurisdiction

Plaintiff alleged that defendant was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment and, therefore, this Court exercises subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction).

B. Standard for Judgment on the Pleadings

A Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings may be filed after the pleadings are closed. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c); Turbe v. Gov't of V.I., 938 F.2d 427, 428 (3d Cir. 1991). In analyzing a Rule 12(c) motion, a court applies the same legal standards as applicable to a motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Turbe, 938 F.2d at 428.

When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion (motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted), a court must accept all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347, 350 (3d Cir. 2005). A complaint must contain "a short and plain ...


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.