Case Title: Jones v. Wright & Bayhealth Medical Group

Citation: 

Docket Number: 375, 2017

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2018-03-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
MATTHEW JONES, 
 
Plaintiff Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
DR. CATHERINE WRIGHT and 
BAYHEALTH MEDICAL GROUP, 
 
Defendants Below- 
Appellees. 
§ 
§  No. 375, 2017 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§   
§  C.A. No. K17C-07-025 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: January 12, 2018 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: March 14, 2018 
 
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 14th day of March 2018, upon consideration of the appellant’s 
opening brief and appendix and the record on appeal, it appears to the Court 
that: 
 
(1) 
The appellant, Matthew Jones, filed this appeal from two orders 
of the Superior Court.  The first order, dated August 14, 2017, required Jones 
to file an affidavit containing the certifications identified in 10 Del. C. § 
8803(e) before the Superior Court would act upon Jones’ motion to file his 
complaint in forma pauperis.  The second order, dated September 26, 2017, 
denied his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his complaint 
 
2 
as legally frivolous.  Without reaching the question of Jones’ indigency, we 
affirm the Superior Court’s dismissal of Jones’ complaint as legally frivolous. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Jones filed a complaint on July 21, 2017, 
alleging that Dr. Catherine Wright and her medical practice “amputated” his 
nose in December 2015.1  Jones alleged that Wright’s actions violated many 
different civil and criminal provisions of the United States Code and also 
violated his federal constitutional rights.  Jones’ complaint requested $2 
billion in damages. 
 
(3) 
The Superior Court summarily dismissed Jones’ complaint as 
legally frivolous, finding that: (i) the federal constitutional provisions cited by 
Jones do not support a cause of action against a non-governmental actor such 
as Dr. Wright or her private medical practice; and (ii) the statutory provisions 
cited by Jones do not provide for a private right of action entitling Jones to 
relief.2   
(4) 
Jones’ opening brief on appeal raises no discernible claim of 
error by the Superior Court.  And, indeed, we find none.  Under the 
circumstances, we conclude that the judgment below dismissing Jones’ 
                                                 
1 Jones supported this allegation by citing to a URL link containing photographs of himself.  
The Superior Court reviewed the link and found that Jones’ “photographs reveal no visible 
deformity.” Jones v. Wright, 2017 WL 4325599, *2 (Del. Super. Sept. 26, 2017). 
2 Id. 
 
3 
complaint as legally frivolous should be affirmed on the basis of and for the 
reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its well-reasoned decision dated 
September 26, 2017. 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Gary F. Traynor 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice