The d efenda n ts w ere not s erved w ith proces s in the dis tr ic t  c our tan d ar e notpar t i c i pati ng i n thi s appe al
. Af t ere xa m i ni ng the app el lant ’ s briefand the re cord, w e have concl ud ed that or a l arg umen ti s un ne c e s s a r y. Th e a ppe a l i s the r e f or e s ub

m it ted on the app el lant ’ s b ri ef a n d the rec ord. S ee F ED . R. A PP . P. 3 4 (a )(2)(C ). 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 2991 M ICHAEL M C G OWAN, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. D ONAL D A. H UL I CK, etal. , D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 09 -cv-017 -DRH

—David R. H ern don, Chief Ju dge .
S UB MI TT ED M AY 26, 2010

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 20, 2010 

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, C hief Ju dg e, an d P OSNERa nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges.2 N o. 09

- 2991 W OO D , C ircu it Judge. M i chaelM c G ow an had an upper m o l a r e xt r a c t e d in J a nu a r y 2 0 0 7wh i l e h e wa s i mpr i so ne d a t I l l i no is’ s M en ar d Co r r ec ti o na l Ce nt er, b utthe e x t r a c t i o n s i t e d i d n o th e a l a n d b e c a me i n fe c t e d
. He w as sti l l suffer i ng fro m co m pli cati ons i n N ove m ber20 07, w hen a speci al i st perf or m ed the seco nd o ftwo sur ger i es to cl ose the hol e l eft bythe extr acti on. M cG ow an then bro ught thi s pro sel aws ui t unde r 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 98 3 an d I l l i no i s l aw, c l ai m i ngtha t th e den ti stwho pe r f o r m ed the extr acti on, the pri son’s dentaldi re cto r, the re gul ar p ris on p h ys icia n, an d th e p ris on w ar d en w e r e all n eg l i g e n ta n d d e l ib e r a t e l y i n d i ffe r e n tt o h i s p l i g h t
. At sc r ee ni ngthe distr i ctc o ur t di smi ss ed th e co m pl aint wi th pr ej ud i c e f o r f a i l ur e t o s t a t e a c l a i m, s e e 2 8 U
. S
. C. § 19 15 A(b ) ( 1) , r ea so ni ngtha t M cGo wan’ s al l eg at i o ns coul d not s up porta fin d ing o fdel iber ate i nd i ffer ence, as o p p o s e d t o n e g l i g e n c e . Mc G o wa n mo v e d f o r r e c o n s i der at i o n, b uto nl y wi thr espec t to Dr
. J o hn Gar dne r, the den ti stwho e xt r acte d hi s to o th, a nd Dr
. Cha pm an, the pr i so n’ s de nt aldi r ec to r . The di st r i ctc o ur t den i ed th e m o ti o n a nd a l l o we d th e di smi ss alt o s ta nd f o r a l l f o ur defe nd ants. M cGow an’ s a pp ealco ncer ns o n ly Drs. Gar dne r a nd Cha pm an . The com pla i nt, sup p l em ented bym edi caland dental re c or d s, p ro vid es th e in for m at ion on w h ich w e m u st rely atthi s st ag e; we ac ce pt i ts f ac tu ala l l eg at i o ns a s true an d draw allreason able inferen c es in M cG ow an ’s f avor. Se e E rickson v. P a rdu s, 551 U
. S. 89, 90 (2007). M cG ow an ’s m o l arb eg anhur tingi n earl y Nov embe r 2 00 6, whenhe be g anfi l i nga l m o st
- wee k l y s i ck

- ca l l r eque st s des cr ibing h i s incre asi ng pai n. H i s pl eas went unansw er ed un tilN o. 09

- 2991 3 he sa w Gardner on J anuary30 , 20 07. M c G ow an as ked Ga r dn e r t o pr o v i de a fi l l i ng f o r the t o o th, b utGardner tol d him the tooth would have to be extr acte d because “M enar d doesn’ t do fi l l i ngs. ” That sta tem ent, sa ys M cGow an, was a l i e, but he ag reed t o the e xtra cti on rath er than end ure the p ain an y lon ger. T he proc ed ure w ent b adly
. A l though Gar dn eradm i ni ste re d tw o shot s ofa l oca l anesthet i c, M cGow an nonethel ess exper i enced ex cr uci at i ng pa i n. The t o o thfr ag m en te d dur i ngthe ex tr ac ti o n, a nd, M cGo wan b el i ev es , Ga r dn erus ed no nden ta l i ns trum en ts , i nc l udi nga n i ce pi ck, to di gthe s p l i n t e r s fr o m h i s g u ms . Mc G o wa n h a s n o o th e r c o mpla i nts a gainstGardner. H i s fol l ow-up care was provi ded byano therpri son denti st, wh o i s no t a defendant. I n th e m ont h foll ow ing the pr o c e d ure , M cG ow an ’s pai n in c rease d. H e was gi ven a spi rin, but the m edi cati on provi ded no re l i ef. On Febr uary28 , 20 07, he a w oke to fin d that a m ass o fti ssue the s i ze ofa gol fbal l had b ro ke n th ro u gh th e s tit c h es ; i t w as so larg e t h a t h e c ou ld no t cl o se hi s m o uth. He s aw hi s treatingde nt i st, who ex ci se d s o m e o fthe t i ss ue , g av e hi m Tyl en o l and s al t, a nd r ec o m m en ded to the pr i so n de ntal di r ec to r, Cha pm an, that M cGow an se e a n or alsur geo n . B ut the Tyl enol w as als o in effe c tiv e in red u c i n g h is p ain , an d th e v isit to th e o ra l su rg eo n w as n otfort h c om in g . C h a p m an st ill had not a pp ro ved thatco nsul tat i on by M ar c h 28 w hen M cGow an’ s pri son denti st saw hi m on an em ergency basi s form or e pai n and sw el l i ng atthe ex tr acti on s i te and diagn os ed h i m with a “s i nus perf or ati on with fi stul a t ra ct. ” ( This i s no l aughi ng m att er : a si nus perf or ati on i s a com pli cati on that m ay occurduri ng the extr acti on4 N o. 09

- 2991

o fa n uppe r mol ar . S ee W ik i pedi a, De nt alExt r ac ti o n, http: //en. w i ki pedia. or g/ w iki/Dental_extr acti on ( l astvi si ted J uly15 , 20 10). A fi stul a i s ba si cal l y a passa geway

— in th i s case , one that connect ed M cGow an’ s m outh to h is s i n u s c a v i t y . S e e M edl i n e P l u s , F i s t u l a , h t t p : //www . nl m. nih. g o v/med l ine plus/e ncy/ a r t i c l e /0 0 2 3 6 5
. htm ( l astvi si ted J uly15 , 20 10)
. S ee al so S T ED MAN ’ S M EDICAL D ICTIO NA RY7 36 ( 28 the d. 2 00 6) ( no tingtha t a patho l o g i c connecti on be tw een m outh a nd m axi llar y si nus i s ca l l ed an or oantr alfi stul a a nd i s m ostco m m onl y a co m pli cati on o fr emov i ngan up permol ar )
. M cGo wan a l l eg es tha t he c on tin u ed to be in p ain as th e in fec tio n s p r e a d u p h is f ac e an d tha t th e m as s i n h i s m o uth a nd the f o ul

- ta st i ng disc harg e k ept hi m from ea ti ng, causing hi m to l ose w ei ght. B y A p ril9, 2 0 0 7, M cG ow an had received Ch ap m an ’s appr o va l to se e th e co nt r ac t o r al su r g eo n o n the surg eon’ s next re gul arvi si t t o M enar d. That vi si t was sc he dul ed for th e wee ko fApri l 2 3, ne ar l y t wo months afterM cGow an’ s t re ati ng den ti st had sought approval for i nter venti on byan o ra l sur geo n. But the surg eon c an c elle d h is v isit, an d M c G ow an w as to ld h e w ou ld have to w ait anothe r thre e m onths unti l the surg eon came a g a i n. Unwi l l i ng t o po s t po ne t r e a t men t f or so l ong, M cGow an fi l ed an em er gencygr i evance o n A pri l 30
. That gr i evance pro m pted the t re ati ng denti st to re quest a r efer r alt o a n o r alsurgeo n a t ano ut si de ho spi ta l a nd to p rescribe a sp lint to cover the hole i n M cG ow an ’s m outh s o t h at h e co uld e at. But w hen M cGow an r ecei ved the spl i nt two weeks l ate r, the prot rusi on

— now ab ou t t h e s ize of a lar ge m arb le

— pr ev en te d the s pl i ntN o. 09

- 2991 5 f ro m fi tting pro perl y an d w i thout pai n, and so he was unabl e t o use i t. Ar o und thi s t i me, Ch a pma n a pp r o v e d the o ut s i de re fer ra l, and M cGow an fi nal l y s aw an o ra l sur geo n on M ay 25, 20 07. But the surg eon announced that he was not quali fi ed to tr eatM cGow an’ s inj ury and rec om m ended that M cGow an se e a n ear, n os e, and thro at ( “EN T”) sp eciali st. T ha t recom m en d ation d id n ot r e a c h M en ard for an oth er t w o w eeks, app aren tly becau se th e oral su rg eo n’ s o ffi ce ha d the wro ngf ax numbe r . T his m ea nt that the ne w r equest f orthe EN T speci al i st w as not subm i tt ed f o r a p p roval unt i l J une 1 1. De nt alr ec o r ds do cum ent that ea rlier, o n J une 6, M cGow an’ s t re ati ng denti st had perso nal l y a dvis ed C h ap m an o fthe need to expedit e the r efer ra l, but Ch apm an wait ed unti l J une 20 to gi ve hi s appr o va l
. By the n, M cGo wan a l l eg es , na sa l mucus w as d ra in in g ou t o f th e e x tr ac tio n s i t e in st ea d of h is nose , and the pri son doctorhad begun tre ati ng hi m f or a sinus i nfec ti o n. Fi nal l y, o n J une 29, 20 07, M c G ow an was eva l uated by a n E N T sp eciali st, w ho ord ered a CT scan of M cG ow an ’s si nuses be f or e pr oce edin g with tr eat m ent. The CT scan w as approve d the next day but did n ot occurunti l J uly16
. On A ugust 3 the EN T speci al i st perf or m ed a s i nus endosco py, whi chi s a pr o ce dur e to r emove b lo ck ag es fr o m the sinu ses. S e e eH ealthM D , W ha t I s E nd oscop ic Sinu s Surger y?, http: //w w w . eheal thmd. c o m /l ibra ry/e nd osinus/es s_ w hati s. htm l ( l astvi si ted J uly15 , 2 010). U nfo rtunatel y, M cGow an’ s pai n continued , the e xtra cti on s i te did not heal, and the hol e fro m hi s m outh to hi s s i nus al l owed6 N o. 09

- 2991 f oo d to enterhi s no se w h en he a te. The EN T speci al i st perf or m ed another surg er y o n N ove m ber2 to re m ove the t i ssue m ass and cl ose the hol e. A t s cre eni ng the di str i ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that M cG ow an ’s al legations d id n ot d escribe d e liberate ind if

fer en c e o n th e p ar t o f eit h er G ar d n er or C h a p m a n ; i t ther ef or e di sm i sse d the ca se. The co urt did notm enti on th e n eg lige n c e a lleg at ion s. It is p os sib le t h at it im p licit ly decl i ned to ex er ci se i ts supp l em entalj uri sdic ti on, se e 28 U
. S. C. § 1 367( c) , but the dism i ssa l apparent l y a dd re sse d th e ent ire com p laint and w as w ith p rej ud ice. Th e cou rt re aso ned that M cGow an’ s a l l ega ti ons about the t oo th ex tr ac ti o n de sc r ibe d o nl y ne g l i g en ce b y Ga r dne r a nd n ot del iber ate i nd i ffer ence. The co urt then co ncl ud ed th atthe M ay2 00 7 re fer r alt o a n o ut si de o r als ur g eo n a nd th e J une 2 00 7 r efer r alt o a n ENT sp ecial i stne g at ed th e po ss ibi l i tytha t an y o fthe r emai ni ngde fen dan ts wi th

h eld m ed ica l ca re from M c G ow an . Th e c ou rtac kn ow ledge d tha t M cGo wan’ s tr ea tmentha d b ee n dr ag g ed o ut ove r a l ong ti m e, but i t thought tha t “a del ay i n proc ess d oe s n otco n st itu te d elib er at e in d iffer en c e.” M c G ow an m ain ta in s t h at h is c o m p lain t s ta te s a cla im agains t G ard ne r and Ch ap m an f or deliberate ind ifference. H e s tr ess es that G ar dn eres senti al l y for ced hi m to have the m ol arextr acte d by f al sel y s tat i ng that fi l l i ngs ar e no t a vai l abl e t o M enar d i nm ate s a nd then perf or m ed a “ gr oss l y defi ci en t proce du re . ” Chapm an, he c onti nues, p u rp os ely d ela ye d h is t re at m en t s ole ly f o r ec on om ic re aso ns, l eaving hi m now w i th per m anent str u c tura l d am age to his or a l a n d n asal cavity. O ur review of aN o. 09

- 2991 7 d ism iss al u n d er § 19 15 A for f a i l u r e t o s ta te a c laim is de novo
. Santiago v. Walls , 5 9 9 F
. 3 d 74 9 , 7 5 5

- 5 6 ( 7th C ir. 2010). The Eighth A m endm ent pr ohibi ts crueland unusual p un ishm en t; th at gu aran tee en com p asses a prisone r’s ri ght t o m edi calcar e. I t is welles tabl i shed that “del iber ate i nd i fference t o ser i ous m edi calneeds of pri sone rs co nsti tutes the unnecessar y and wanton i nfl i ctio n of p ain p ro sc rib ed by th e E igh th A m en d m en t.” E stelle v. G a m ble, 42 9 U.S
. 97, 10 4 ( 1976) ( quotati on m ar ks and ci tat i on o m i tte d). Thi s princi p l e a pp l i es equal l y t o d en ta l c a r e . Ber ry v . Pe t e r m an , 604 F.3d 435 , 440 (7th C ir. 2010 )
. But negl i gence , ev en gr oss negl i gence , does not vio lat e t h e C on st itu tio n . Es t e l le, 4 29 U
. S. at10 5- 06; Knight v. Wi s e m an , 590 F.3d 45 8, 46 3 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ). O n ly del ibe r at e i ndi ffer en ce o r wor se i n the f ace o fa s er i o us m ed ica l n e e d w i l l d o. E st el le, 429 U .S. at 1 03 -04 ; Haye s v. Sn yd er, 5 4 6 F
. 3 d 5 1 6 , 5 2 2 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 )
. A d e l a y i n t re atm ent m ay consti tute del iber ate i nd i ffer ence i fthe del ay exacerbate d the i nj ury orunnecess ar i l y prolo nged an in m at e’s p ain
. E st el le, 429 U.S
. at10 4- 05; Gayt on v. M cCoy, 593 F. 3d 610, 619 ( 7th Cir . 201 0); E dw a rds v . Sny der, 47 8 F. 3d 827, 83 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07). T here i s no questi on that M cGo wan’ s co m p l aints uffi ci en tly a l l eg es a s er i o us m edi ca l ne ed
. The i ss ue he r e i s whethe r the c o m pl aint al so pla usibl y s ugges ts that ei therGardner orChapm an o r b o th we r e de l ib e r a t e l y i nd i ffe r e ntt o tha tn e e d. W e c on c lu d e t h at th e d ist ric t c ou rtw as to o h as ty in dism i ssi ng the cl ai m ag ai nst C hapm an, es peci al l y g i ven i ts du ty to const rue M cGow an’ s pro sec om p l ai nt l ib-8 N o. 09

- 2991

er al l y. S ee Er i cks on, 55 1 U .S. at 9 4; Ha ines v. Kerner, 404 U
. S. 519, 5 20 (19 72)
. M cGow an se t for th a pla usibl e a ccount of the f a c t s s ho wi ng how muc h de l a y h e e xp e r i e nc e d, ho w ofte n h e an d o th er s as k ed Ch apman to a ct, a nd w ha t the co nsequences w er e o fi nacti on. Del ay i s no t a f acto r that i s e i theral w ays , o r never, si gni fica nt. I nstea d, the l ength ofdel ay that i s t ol er abl e depends on th e se r i o us ne ss o f th e co ndi ti o n an d the e as e o fpr o vi di ng tr eat m en t. See Gri e ve s on v. Ande rs on , 53 8 F
. 3d 763, 77 8- 80 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( g ua r ds co ul d b e l i able for del ay i ng tr eat m ent forpai nfulbr ok en nos e by at l eas t a day- and-ah alf); Edwards , s u pra , 47 8 F
. 3d at 831 ( tw o- day del ay i n tr eat m ent fo r open di sl oca ted fi ngerf orno m edi cal re aso n sta ted a cl ai m ag ai nst pr i son doctorf ordel iber ate in d iffer en c e); Gut i e r r ez v. Pe t e rs , 1 11 F. 3d 1364, 13 74 ( 7th Cir
. 1997 ) ( dism i ssa l f or f ai l ure to sta te a cl aim pro per because s ix

- day waitto se e a docto r w as not unreason ably l ong f or i nfect ed cyst d eem ed not th at seve re); C o o per v . C a sey, 97F. 3d 914, 91 6- 17 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96) ( prese n te d j u ry qu es tio n “w h et h er th e p lain tiffs w er e in su ffi ci en t pain t o e nt i tl e th em to pa i n medi ca ti o n wi th

in the first 48 hou rs after the beat ing”). M cGow an’ s co m pla i nt a ll ege s with speci fi ci ty a num bero ftr oubl i ng del ays i n hi s t re atm ent. H e was f o r c e d t o wa i tth r e e mo n th s t o s e e a d e n t i s ta ft e r he fi rs t co m pla i ned ofdentalpai n. That unexpla i ned dela y coul d supp or t a del iber ate
- i nd i ffer ence cl ai m i fChapm an wa s a wa r e o fth e s e v e r i t y o fMc G o wa n ’ s d e n t a l p r o b l e ms yetr efused to approv e a dentalvi si t. S ee Har t s f i e l d v
. C o lburn , 371 F.3d 45 4, 45 7 (8 th C ir. 20 04 ); B o yd v. Knox , 47 F. 3d 966, 96 9 ( 8th C ir. 19 95)
. A nd M cGow an has al l ege dN o. 09

- 2991 9 that Ch apm an kne w as early a s F ebr uary28 , 20 07, that M cGo wan ne ede d to se e an o r al su r g eo n after the bot ched extr ac tio n, ye t Chapm an r equi re d M cGow an to w ait u nti l A pri l, wh en the co ntra ct o ra l sur geo n wa s s c h e d u l e d t o c o me t o th e p r i s o n . T h e s y mp t o ms M cGow an descr ibes

— pai nfulswel l i ng atthe ex tr acti on si te coupl ed w i th di schar ge

— coul d supp or t a fi nd i ng tha t tw o m ont h s w as too l ong to w ai t. Even wh en i t was cl ea r tha t th e ex tr ac ti o n h ad l ed to a s i nus pe r for at i o n, Ch a pma n s t a l l e d in a utho r i z i nga r ef er ra l t o a n o ut s i de su rg eo n aft er t h e co n tr ac t s u rg eo n h ad ca n c elle d h is pla nned A pri l vi si t a nd was not ex p ecte d back f or anothe r thre e m onths. I t too k a gr i evance fro m M cGow an to se c u re t h e n ew refe rra l to t h e o ra l su rg eo n, bu t s till Cha pm anwai te d t wo wee k s be f o r e ac tingon th e pri son denti st’ s r equest to expedite the r eferr alto an EN T speci al i st. Final l y, the com pla i nt r eco unts se ver al i nstance s of del aye d s cheduli ng w i th the EN T sp eci al i st, i ncl ud i ng a m i sse d app oi ntm ent. W e r ec o g ni ze tha t a m o r e co m p l et e ex ami na ti o n o fthe fac ts m ay show that M cGow an’ s co nd i ti on di d not nee d i m m edi at e tr ea tment, th at Cha pm an was no t awar e o fthe need for m ore ur gent car e, o r that som eone el se w as re sponsibl e forthe del ay. But thos e a re detai l s t o be explo re d du ring di sco ver y. A t thi s s tag e, M cGow an has sta ted a cl ai m f orsuch s er i ous del ay in h is tre atm ent that th e E igh th A m en d m en t m ay h av e b ee n vio l at ed . H is al l eg at i o ns s uffi ce t o putCha pm ano n n o ti ce o fwhathe is a ccused ofdoi ng wrong: thati s, he a l l ege dlydel aye d appr o va l f o r M cGo wan t o se e a den ti st, a n o r als ur g eo n, and an EN T speci al i st, and thes e del ays bo th cause d10 N o. 09

- 2991 M c G ow a n t o s u ffer u n n ec es sa ry p ain an d m ad e h is c on dit i on dete ri or ate
. Thi s i s e nough. S ee Eri cks on , 55 1 U .S. at 9 3-9 4; B u rk s v . Ra em is ch , 55 5 F
. 3d 592, 59 4 ( 7th C ir. 2009). M cG ow an ’s c a s e against G ard ne r i s a different m atter. H i s co m plai nt f ocuse s o nl y o n Gardner’ s deci si on t o extr act the t oo th r atherthan to fi l l i t a nd o n the w ay that Gardn er a lleg ed ly proce eded. A ccor ding to M cG ow an, Ga rd ne r l ied w he n h e said th at “M en ard doesn’ t do fi l l i ngs, ” a nd the pu rpos e o fthe l i e was to o bt a i n p e r mi s s i o n t o p e r f o r m th e e x t r a c t i o n . B u ti n t he en d, thi s di spu te i s o ve r no th i ngb utthe c ho i ce o fo ne ro uti ne m edi calpro cedure ver su s an othe r, and that i s not en ou gh to st ate an Ei ghth Am endm ent c l ai m . S ee Ber ry, supra, 60 4 F .3d at44 1; C iarpagliniv. Saini, 35 2 F
. 3d 328, 331 (7th C ir. 2003). A lthou gh a m ed ical p rofessional’s ac ti o ns may r efl ec t del ibe r at e i ndi ffer en ce i fhe o r s he ch o o se s an “e as i er an d l es s effi ca ci o us t r ea tment ” wi th o ut ex er c isin g p ro fes sio n al jud gm en t, E st el le, 429 U
. S. at 104 n .10 ; Johnson v. D ough ty, 43 3 F
. 3d 1001 , 101 8-19 ( 7th Cir
. 20 06) , thati s no t what M c Gow an acc uses Gardner o f doi ng. H e al so ass er ts that Gardner bot ched the e xtra cti on, but hi s a lleg atio ns descr ibe o nl y neg l i gence , perhaps g ro ss negl i gence, witho ut sugg est i ng tha t G ar d n er m alic iou sly int en d ed to ca u s e M c G ow an p ain o r o th er wi se pe r f o r m ed the pr o ce dur e i n a way tha t he knew would cre ate a substa nti alr i sk ofco m pli cati ons. S ee Fa rm erv. Br e nna n , 5 11 U. S
. 8 25 , 8 42

- 45 ( 19 94 )
. The c lo s e s t M c G ow an co m es to an E igh th A m en d m en t c laim i s when he say s that Gar dn eru sed an i ce pi ck to extr act the t oo th. A l l M c G ow an can be s aying, however, i s thatN o. 09

- 2991 11 he sa w Gardner use s om ethi ng t h at lo oke d to hi m l i ke an i ce pi ck; thatm uch i s pos sibl e, bec ause som e den tal i nstr um ents m ay re sem b le an i ce pi ck to an untra i ned ey e. The r e i s no th i ngi n the c o m pl aintsu ppo r tingthe h igh ly u n like ly p os sib ility th at th e s et of to ols av aila b le to the pr i son denti sts a t M enar d i ncl ud ed a c om m on i ce p ick. W e con clud e, th erefore, that the d istri ct cou rt corre ctl y di sm issed M cGow an’ s cl ai m s a gainst Gar dn er . S ee gener al l y A shcroft v. Iq bal, 129 S. Ct
. 1937, 1949-50 (2009). Because we have concl ud ed that i t was er ro r to dism i ss M cGo wan’ s co m pl aintagai ns t Cha pm an, we va ca te the o r derdi sm issi ngthe a ct i o n t o tha t ex te nta nd r emand f o r fur th erpr o ce eding s co ns i st entwi ththi s o pi ni o n. M cGow an i s a l so enti tl ed to h av e hi s s up ple m entalst ate
l a w c l a i m a g a i n s t C h a p ma n f o r n e g l i g e n c e r e i n s t a t e d
. We affi rm the d is m issa l of the fede ral claim against G ard ne r. B ec au se w e underst and the di str i ct c ourtto have r eco gni zed thatM cGow an’ s co m pla i nt ag ai nst Gar dn er m i g hth a v e s t a t e d a s t a t e - l a w c l a i m f o r n e g l i g e n c e , h o wever, we al so or der that the di sm i ssa l o fthatcl ai m be m odi fied to s how thati t i s without prej ud i ce. S ee 28 U
. S. C
. § 1367(c). V ACA T ED AN D R EMAND ED .

7- 20- 10