201 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 1999), 98-4492, Wilford v. Medina General Hosp.

Docket Nº:98-4492.
Citation:201 F.3d 442
Party Name:Mary C. WILFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Medina General HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellee.
Case Date:December 01, 1999
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Page 442

201 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 1999)

Mary C. WILFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant,


Medina General HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 98-4492.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

December 1, 1999

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

Before KEITH, NORRIS, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.



Plaintiff, Mary Wilford, appeals from an order of the district court granting summary judgment to defendant, Medina General Hospital, on the lawsuit she filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and Ohio statutory and case law.

Having carefully considered the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant.

One of the issues set out in plaintiff's brief, that defendant violated federal and state law by submitting her to unwarranted psychological testing, was not raised as a discrete issue in the district court. Therefore, that issue will not be entertained for the first time on appeal. See Taft Broad. Co. v. United States, 929 F.2d 240, 243 (6th Cir.1991).

Because the reasoning that supports judgment for defendant has been articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed upon the reasoning employed by that court in its Memorandum and Order filed on November 13, 1998.


In December 1991, petitioner Jonathan Taylor pleaded guilty to the charges of aggravated burglary, attempted rape, felonious assault, kidnaping, and sexual imposition, each with a specification for a prior conviction. On appeal, Taylor argued that the trial court had failed to comply with Ohio Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(C)(2)(a), which requires an explanation of the nature and elements of the offenses charged, and that his plea was thus constitutionally invalid because it was not knowing and voluntary. The Ohio Court of Appeals concluded that although the trial court had not substantially complied with Rule 11(C)(2)(a), Taylor had not established that he was prejudiced by the error, which precluded the court from granting relief under state law. See State v. Taylor, No. 94-G-1894, 1996 WL 200616, (Ohio Ct.App. March 29, 1996) (unpublished opinion)...

To continue reading