Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150714_0001900.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-04-19 23:00:40
Document Index: 589066085

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 636', '§ 1331', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

William E. Hall, Plaintiff,
Dr. Amishi Y. Shah; Dr. Francine L. Carattini-Eley; Dr. Mohammed A. Memon; Spartanburg Regional-Regional Psychiatry, Defendants.
This matter comes before this Court for review of United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald's Report and Recommendation made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) DSC, and filed on June 15, 2015. ECF No. 12. For the reasons discussed herein, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation in its entirety and summarily dismisses this case without prejudice and without service of process.
Plaintiff William Hall ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed this medical malpractice action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 on May 20, 2015. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 10. Under established procedure in this judicial district, Magistrate Judge McDonald made a thorough and careful review of the Complaint and now recommends that this Court summarily dismiss this case without prejudice and without service of process. ECF No. 12.
The failure to file objections to the Report and Recommendation waives any further right to appeal when the parties have been warned that they must object to preserve appellate review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); see also Carter v. Pritchard, 34 F.Appx. 108, 108 (4th Cir. 2002) (unpublished per curiam decision). In the present case, Plaintiff received a copy of the Report and Recommendation, which contained a "Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation." ECF Nos. 12 & 13. The Notice warned that "[f]ailure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation." Id. The deadline for filing objections was July 2, 2015. See id. Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation until July 6, 2015. ECF No. 14. While this objection was filed outside of the applicable time period, out of an abundance of caution, the Court will address Plaintiff's objection. ECF No. 12 at 4.
Liberally construed, it appears that Plaintiff is objecting to the conclusion in the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation that the three psychiatrists and Regional Psychiatry are subject to summary dismissal because they are private citizens who have not acted under color of state law, as required for a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See ECF No. 12 at 4. In so objecting, Plaintiff first argues that Dr. Shah, his initial physician, "deprived the plaintiff of a right secured by the constitution"... and "violated my privileges according to Article IV of the Constitution" when "[s]he never gave to the time to properly assess my condition" and "did not give me the opportunity to express to her that the symptom for which she diagnosed my condition was incorrect." ECF No. 14 at 2. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that Dr. Shah acted under color of state law because "she is a doctor given authority to exercise her practice as a licensed psychiatric practitioner in a state facility. Her actions have led to the unnecessary continuing treatment of a purposefully misdiagnosed symptom." Id.
It is well-settled law that to state a claim for relief in an action brought under § 1983, a Plaintiff must establish that he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that the alleged deprivation was committed under color of state law. See Am. Mfr. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49-52 (1999). Like the state-action requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment, the under-color-of-state-law element of § 1983 excludes from its reach "merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful.'" Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1002 (1982) (quoting Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 13 (1948)). Here, Plaintiff alleges that because Dr. Shah is licensed to practice medicine under the laws of the State of South Carolina, and because she practices in a state facility, her actions constitute "state action" under the requirements of § 1983. However, in cases involving even extensive state regulation of private activity, the courts have consistently held that "[t]he mere fact that a business is subject to state regulation does not by itself convert its action into that of the State for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment." Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 350 (1974); see Blum, 457 U.S. at 1004. The medical facility and ...