998 F.2d 1001 (1st Cir. 1993), 93-1296, Bent v. Massachusetts General Hosp.
|Citation:||998 F.2d 1001|
|Party Name:||Eleanor A. BENT, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants, Appellees.|
|Case Date:||July 20, 1993|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA1 Rule 36 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Eleanor A. Bent on brief pro se.
Frank E. Reardon, Michael J. Racette and Hassan & Reardon on brief for appellees Massachusetts General Hospital and Cornelius Grania, M.D.
Susan H. Williams and Taylor, Anderson & Travers on brief for appellee Falmouth Hospital.
James A. Polcari and Dunn & Rogers on brief for appellee Alan Cordts, M.D.
Jennifer Ellis Burke and Taylor, Anderson & Travers on brief for appellee South Shore Hospital.
John M. Dellea and Ficksman & Conley on brief for appellees Burton Mendel, M.D. and Lahey Clinic Foundation.
Before Breyer, Chief Judge, Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
We conclude that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff complained of the treatment she and her mother received from various private doctors and other health care providers. She contended the providers' conduct was so egregious as to amount to a deprivation of her constitutional rights to privacy, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Because the defendants are all private actors, plaintiff has failed to state any viable federal civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mendez v. Belton, 739 F.2d 15, 17 (1st Cir. 1984). At best, plaintiff set forth state law causes of action. As complete diversity of...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP