Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ashelman v. Evangelical Community Hospital

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

April 9, 2019

SEAN ANTHONY AHSELMAN, Plaintiff
v.
EVANGELICAL COMMUNITY HOSPITAL ET AL., Defendant

          BRANN, D.J.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          William I. Arbuckle, U.S. Magistrate Judge.

         I. Introduction

         In this action brought primarily pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff, Sean Anthony Ashelman, alleges that Defendants, Evangelical Community Hospital and its staff, Bradley Mayer, M.D., Heather Smith, R.N., Beverly Lloyd, R.N, Susan Snook, R.N., Patricia Cox, Rose Edwards, and Diane Zimmerman (the Hospital Defendants) violated his civil rights by allegedly forcibly medicating him against his will and drawing blood without his permission. Plaintiff has also brought suit against Corporal Sean Burns of the Buffalo Valley Regional Police Department.

         II. Background and Procedural History

          Plaintiff is a former prisoner, who filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). I granted Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 24). On June 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 10). The Amended Complaint named the following two categories of Defendants: (1) Corporal Sean Burns of the Buffalo Valley Regional Police Department, and (2) Evangelical Community Hospital and its staff members, including Bradley Mayer, M.D., Heather Smith, R.N., Beverly Lloyd, R.N, Susan Snook, R.N., Patricia Cox, Rose Edwards, and Diane Zimmerman.

         Pursuant to my order (Doc. 24) dated July 13, 2018, I granted Plaintiff the opportunity to provide the clerk the correct address of Cpl. Sean Burns. Plaintiff failed to do so, and Defendant Burns has not been served. He should be dismissed as a party from this lawsuit.

         III. Discussion

         Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part, that:

If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court-on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff-must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

         The procedural history of this case reflects that Plaintiff was initially placed on notice of his obligation to properly serve each defendant in my order on December 27, 2017. (Doc. 5). Upon receipt of the returned Waiver of Service of Summons for the Hospital Defendants, (Docs. 13-20), Plaintiff was notified not only of his obligation to serve Defendant Burns, but also of the consequences for his failure to do so. Furthermore, in my order granting the Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff was directed to provide the Court with the correct mailing address for Defendant Burns on or before Friday July 27, 2018. (Doc. 24). Because he has failed to serve Defendant Burns, all claims against Defendant Burns should be DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m).

         IV. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.