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.

Hunt v. Beaufort

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

May 11, 2016

Kalvin Dontay Hunt, #10241269, Plaintiff,
v.
Naval Hospital Beaufort, Case Pro Incorporated, Defendants.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          JACQUELYN D. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.

         Kalvin Dontay Hunt ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, brings this civil action seeking damages. Plaintiff apparently is involuntarily confined at the Columbia Regional Care Center.[1] He files this action in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Complaint is subject to summary dismissal.

         BACKGROUND

         On or about April 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed this civil action against Naval Hospital Beaufort and Case Pro Incorporated. [Doc. 1.] He alleges medical malpractice, deliberate indifference, and racial discrimination. [ Id. at 2.] And, Plaintiff alleges the following specific facts. On February 24, 2012, he "checked into the emergency room of Naval Hospital Beaufort." [Doc. 1.] He informed someone that he had homicidal and suicidal inclinations, and he was going to be admitted to the "psychward." [ Id. ] However, after he was deemed a threat to safety of himself or others, he escaped their custody and fled the hospital grounds on foot. [ Id. ] Case Pro Incorporated was the security company that disregarded securing Plaintiff which then led to the untimely death of an innocent bystander by the hands of Plaintiff. [ Id. ] The medical staff of Naval Hospital Beaufort did not give Plaintiff "fair medical care, " and Plaintiff was left alone even though he had been diagnosed as psychotic. [ Id. ] Plaintiff alleges he is a black man, "was obviously mishandled, " and did not receive "proper medical care." [ Id. ]

         Based on those facts, Plaintiff alleges Case Pro Incorporated and the medical staff of Naval Hospital Beaufort were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's medical needs. [ Id. ] Further, he brings a "medical malpractice claim." [ Id. ] He seeks damages. [ Id. ]

         This Court takes judicial notice that Plaintiff alleges facts in the Complaint almost identical to the facts alleged in his prior civil action, Hunt v. Naval Hospital Beaufort, et al., C/A No. 15-4388-TMC-JDA, and he sues the same Defendants again. See Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem. Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009) (courts "may properly take judicial notice of matters of public record."); Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 1989) ("We note that the most frequent use of judicial notice is in noticing the content of court records.'"). On or about October 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed a civil action against the Naval Hospital Beaufort and Case Pro Incorporated, and on February 4, 2016, this Court adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed the action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. See Order, Hunt v. Naval Hosp. Beaufort, et al., C/A No. 9:15-4388-TMC-JDA (D.S.C. Feb. 4, 2016), ECF No. 22.

         In that prior civil action, Plaintiff alleged the following:

Plaintiff resides at the Columbia Regional Correct Care Center in Columbia, South Carolina. [Doc. 1.] He brings this action against Case Pro Incorporated, in Beaufort, South Carolina, and the Naval Hospital Beaufort in Beaufort, South Carolina. [ Id. ] Plaintiff makes no allegations about Case Pro Incorporated-what type of entity it is or how it was involved. [ Id. ]
Plaintiff alleges the following facts. On February 24, 2012, he was a patient in the Beaufort Naval Hospital because he was having psyc[h]osis symptoms. [ Id. ] Plaintiff informed staff at the Naval Hospital that he did feel like harming himself or others. [ Id. ] He was deemed to be a threat to himself, and then he was left unattended. [ Id. ] While naked, he fled the premises of the Naval Hospital without staff or security stopping him. [ Id. ] Then, Plaintiff had a flashback, stole an idling fire truck, and murdered an innocent pedestrian. [ Id. ]
Plaintiff alleges that he escaped the Naval Hospital due to the negligence of the doctors, nurses, and security, and his escape permitted him to commit the heinous crime. [ Id. ] Plaintiff contends that those persons on staff at the Naval Hospital failed to protect the general public from him. [ Id. ] And, after he reported his thoughts of harming himself, it was medical malpractice to give Plaintiff an opportunity to harm himself. [ Id. ]
Based on these facts, Plaintiff contends that Defendants are culpable, criminally negligent, and committed medical malpractice. [ Id. ] Thus, they should be liable to Plaintiff for damages. [ Id. ] He also requests that his criminal charges or conviction be exonerated. [ Id. ]

See Report and Recommendation, Hunt v. Naval Hosp. Beaufort, et al., C/A No. 9:15-4388-TMC-JDA (D.S.C. Dec. 18, 2015), ECF No. 17, adopted by, Order, ECF. 22.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B), and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) DSC, the undersigned is authorized to review the Complaint for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the District Court. Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the in forma pauperis statute. This statute authorizes the District Court to dismiss a case if it is satisfied that the action "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, " is "frivolous or malicious, " ...


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.