McTerrell v. Bellview Hospital, Corporation
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:19-cv-04469
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In McTerrell v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Judge Engelmayer granted dismissal, dismissed Doe claims with prejudice, and denied appointed counsel.
Sean McTerrell; New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation; the unnamed individual defendants; and McTerrell’s request for appointed counsel.
What happened
In McTerrell v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Sean McTerrell, representing himself, alleged under a federal civil-rights law that he was forcibly medicated and subjected to intrusive medical procedures at Bellevue Hospital.
The court had allowed McTerrell to amend his complaint after an earlier dismissal recommendation. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and Magistrate Judge Aaron recommended granting that motion, dismissing the claims against the unnamed defendants with prejudice, and denying further amendment.
Judge Engelmayer found no clear error in the recommendation, adopted it without modification, granted the Corporation’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the claims against the individual defendants with prejudice, and denied McTerrell’s request for appointed counsel. The court directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- McTerrell v. Bellview Hospital, Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-04469
- Paul Engelmayer
- Oct. 7, 2020
Background
Sean McTerrell filed the action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against people acting under state law. He alleged that he was forcibly medicated and subjected to intrusive medical procedures against his will while at Bellevue Hospital. The opinion identifies New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation as the entity operating Bellevue Hospital.
The Corporation moved to dismiss the original complaint. Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron recommended granting that motion, dismissing the claims against the unnamed Jane Doe and John Doe defendants without prejudice because McTerrell had not provided information allowing them to be identified, and allowing McTerrell to amend. The district court adopted that recommendation and permitted an amended complaint.
McTerrell later filed a letter that the court treated as his amended complaint. The Corporation again moved to dismiss. Magistrate Judge Aaron’s September 17, 2020 Report and Recommendation advised granting the motion, dismissing the claims against the individual defendants with prejudice, and denying further leave to amend. McTerrell objected and also requested appointment of pro bono counsel.
Court’s analysis
The district court explained that specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation receive fresh review, while general or conclusory objections are reviewed for clear error. The court found that McTerrell’s objections were general and did not address the Report and Recommendation’s specific analysis. After reviewing the recommendation for clear error, the court found none.
The court also considered McTerrell’s request for appointed counsel. It stated that civil litigants seeking appointed counsel must first show that their claims are likely to have merit. The court found that McTerrell had not satisfied that requirement.
Disposition
The court adopted the 2020 Report and Recommendation without modification. It granted New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the claims against the individual defendants with prejudice, denied McTerrell’s application for appointment of pro bono counsel, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The opinion incorporates the 2020 Report and Recommendation, but the provided text does not reproduce that report’s detailed analysis of why the amended claims were subject to dismissal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.