2012 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

8-7-2012 

# W ali y y uddin Ab dul l ah v

. Thom a s J effe rson U ni

v H o s p
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 12-2811

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2012 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" W al iy y udd in Abdul l ah v

. Thom as J effe r s on U

niv H osp " (2012). 2012 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 593. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012/593

### G LD

- 241 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 2

- 2811

___________ WALIYYUDDIN ABDULLAH ,

Appellant

v. THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL; BENJAMIN GOCIAL, D R .; ALEX HART, D R

.

__________________ __________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern D istrict of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 2

- 12

- cv - 02920 ) District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyner

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action P ursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 July 26, 2012 Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR., and BARRY , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : August 7, 2012 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM Waliyyuddin Abdullah commenced this action by filing a pro se complaint against Thomas Jefferson University Hospital and two doctors, claiming that, on October 21, 1982, the defendants administered medical treatment to his newborn son that caused2



### injuries and led to the child’s death three months later. Abdullah sought damage s for an alleged violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 as well as violations of the First, Seventh , and Fourteenth Amendments . The District Court granted in forma pauperis status and dismissed the complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e), finding that the su it was time

- barred under the statute of limitations. The District Court also noted that the lack of diversity among the parties precluded jurisdiction over any state

- law claims for medical malpractice. Abdullah appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U .S.C. §1291. Our review is plenary. See Allah v. Seiverling , 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). The District Court correctly concluded that this suit is barred. As explained by the District Court, Abdullah’s claims are plainly time

- barred under the st atute of limitations. See Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. , 541 U.S. 369, 382

- 84 (2004) ( holding four

- year statute of limitations governs § 1981 claims based on amended version of § 1981; otherwise, most analogous state limitations period gover n s); Ahme d v. Dragovich , 297 F.3d 201, 206 (3d Cir. 2002) ( noting Pennsylvania’s two

- year statute of limitations governs 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims). Accordingly, because the appeal does not present a substantial question , we will affirm. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I. O.P. 10.6. 1

1 

### Although we need not reach the issue, Abdullah’s complaint indicated that he has filed numerous lawsuits based on the events in question, suggesting that his claims would be prec luded even if they were timely.