Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02578/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02578-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:2674 Federal Tort Claims Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lester A. Johnston, Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

United States of America, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-2578-PHX-FJM

ORDER

We have before us defendants United States of America, Office of Veterans Affairs,

General Counsel Department of Veterans Affairs, Carl T. Hayden VA Medical Center, Dr.

Kreul, Dr. Aiello, Dr. Delan, and Dr. Mitchell’s motion to dismiss (doc. 15). Plaintiff did

not respond, and the time for doing so has expired. Plaintiff asserts claims against defendant

Carl T. Hayden VA Medical Center for “negligence, misdiagnosis and unethical practice,”

and against defendants Office of Regional Counsel and Office of General Counsel for failure

to comply with the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2671, et seq. Complaint

at 2 (doc. 1). 

Defendants move to dismiss on the following grounds: (1) plaintiff has not established

subject matter jurisdiction because he does not allege that he exhausted administrative

remedies, as required by the FTCA; (2) plaintiff does not adequately state a claim for medical

malpractice under Arizona law, see A.R.S. § 12-563; (3) plaintiff has not filed the requisite

Case 2:10-cv-02578-FJM Document 16 Filed 04/21/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

affidavit regarding expert testimony, pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2603(A); and (4) plaintiff has

not stated a claim against defendant General Counsel’s office. 

Plaintiff’s response to defendants’ motion to dismiss was due on April 10, 2011, but

no response has been filed. If an unrepresented party “does not serve and file the required

answering memoranda . . . such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or

granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” LRCiv 7.2(i).

Plaintiff’s failure to respond is deemed consent to the granting of the motion.

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. 15).

Plaintiff shall have to and including May 2, 2011 within which to file an amended

complaint that cures the deficiencies noted by the defendants. If no amended complaint is

filed by May 2, 2011, the clerk shall dismiss this action with prejudice. 

We urge plaintiff to seek the advice of a lawyer. 

DATED this 21st day of April, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02578-FJM Document 16 Filed 04/21/11 Page 2 of 2