Michael Walker v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granted summary judgment to the defendants on the plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical-care claims. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s Alabama Medical Liability Act claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice. The opinion was entered in an action brought by Michael Walker against Wexford Health Sources, Inc. and several physicians.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment was warranted because Mr. Walker did not establish that Drs. Rahming, Pouparinas, and Allen provided constitutionally inadequate medical care.
2. Summary judgment was warranted for Wexford because Mr. Walker did not demonstrate that Wexford had a custom or policy that caused a constitutional violation.
3. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) after disposing of the federal claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Mr. Walker's Eighth Amendment medical-care claims.
2. Whether Mr. Walker established that Wexford Health Sources, Inc. maintained a custom or policy that caused a constitutional violation.
3. Whether the district court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Walker's Alabama Medical Liability Act claims after resolving the federal claims.

Disposition

other