Grimes v. District of Columbia, Civil Case No. 08–2024 (RJL).
| Court | United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia) |
| Writing for the Court | RICHARD J. LEON District Judge. |
| Citation | 923 F.Supp.2d 196 |
| Docket Number | Civil Case No. 08–2024 (RJL). |
| Decision Date | 12 February 2013 |
| Parties | Patricia GRIMES, as the next best friend and Personal Representative of the Estate of Karl Grimes, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, and Prince George's Hospital Center, Defendants. District of Columbia, Cross Claimant, v. Prince George's Hospital Center, Cross Defendant. Prince George's Hospital Center, Counter Claimant, v. District of Columbia, Counter Defendant. |
923 F.Supp.2d 196
Patricia GRIMES, as the next best friend and Personal Representative of the Estate of Karl Grimes, Plaintiff,
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, and Prince George's Hospital Center, Defendants.
District of Columbia, Cross Claimant,
v.
Prince George's Hospital Center, Cross Defendant.
Prince George's Hospital Center, Counter Claimant,
v.
District of Columbia, Counter Defendant.
Civil Case No. 08–2024 (RJL).
United States District Court,
District of Columbia.
Feb. 12, 2013.
[923 F.Supp.2d 197]
Gregory L. Lattimer, Law Offices of Gregory L. Lattimer, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
David A. Jackson, District of Columbia Office of the Attorney General, Washington, DC, Gina Marie Smith, Joseph B. Chazen, Meyers, Rodbell & Rosenbaum, P.A., Riverdale Park, MD, for Cross Claimant.
David A. Jackson, Erica Taylor McKinley, Attorney General's Office for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, Chantelle M. Custodio, Hodes, Pessin & Katz, PA, Towson, MD, Gina Marie Smith, Joseph B. Chazen, Meyers, Rodbell & Rosenbaum, P.A., Riverdale Park, MD, for Defendants.
Gina Marie Smith, Joseph B. Chazen, Meyers, Rodbell & Rosenbaum, P.A., Riverdale Park, MD, for Cross Defendant.
David A. Jackson, District of Columbia Office of the Attorney General, Washington, DC, for Counter Defendant.
RICHARD J. LEON District Judge.
Plaintiff Patricia Grimes (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against defendant District of Columbia (“DC”) for violation of the Eighth Amendment and negligent hiring, training, and supervision. Before the Court is defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed on September 13, 2010. [Dkt. # 55]. Upon consideration of the parties' pleadings, relevant law, and the entire record herein, the motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff filed a complaint on November 24, 2008, seeking to recover for her son's death. Complaint (“Compl.”) [Dkt. # 1]. Decedent Karl Grimes (“KG”), as a juvenile offender in defendant's custody, was committed to the Oak Hill Detention Facility (“Oak Hill”) on or about August 29, 2005. Compl. ¶¶ 10, 17. Plaintiff alleges that, on or about November 23, 2005, KG was attacked by several Oak Hill residents, resulting in his death. Id. at ¶¶ 11, 15. According to plaintiff, the attack occurred because “the facility was under-staffed and/or improperly-staffed to accomplish the detention of young males in a reasonably safe environment.” Id. at ¶ 12. Plaintiff contends that defendant violated KG's Eighth Amendment rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Compl. Count I ¶ 21. Plaintiff additionally contends that defendant was negligent in hiring, training, and supervising Oak Hill personnel. Compl. Count II.
On November 6, 2009, the Court issued a scheduling order requiring plaintiff to designate expert witnesses by January 18, 2010 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4). [Dkt. # 34]. Thereafter, the Court extended the deadline for plaintiff to file a Rule 26(b)(4) Statement to March 20, 2010. Minute Order, June 21, 2010 [Dkt. # 40]. During the extended period, plaintiff failed to identify any expert witnesses and failed to ask for additional time to do so.
On September 13, 2010, the District of Columbia filed a motion for summary judgment.
[923 F.Supp.2d 198]
Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. [Dkt. # 55]. Plaintiff never filed a response. Instead, plaintiff filed on December 1, 2010, a motion to strike defendant's motion for summary judgment and disqualify the Office of the Attorney General from representing defendant. [Dkt. # 57]. On December 10, 2010, defendant filed a motion for an order granting its motion for summary judgment as conceded. [Dkt. # 58].
By memorandum...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Girdler v. United States, Civil Action No. 10–1807 (BAH).
...Upon consideration of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Court concludes that (1) the plaintiffs have [923 F.Supp.2d 196]failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was negligent in the maintenance of the sidewalk adjacent to the NASM in......
-
Grimes v. Dist. of Columbia, 13–7038.
...the District of Columbia government's denial of any “history of assaults on youth at Oak Hill.” Grimes v. District of Columbia, 923 F.Supp.2d 196, 198–99 (D.D.C.2013) ; see also Appellee's Br. 25, 26. Without evidentiary development there is no basis for judging the facts here. That is why ......
-
Brown v. Metro Transit Police Dep't, Civil Action No. 14–2065 BAH
...at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). See Grimes v. District of Columbia, 923 F.Supp.2d 196, 198 (D.D.C.2013) (“The 2010 Amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56... and the accompanying Advisory Committee Notes do not prohibit......
-
Rozo v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, Civil Action No. 13–0427(BAH)
...on the undisputed factual record that the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Grimes v. District of Columbia, 923 F.Supp.2d 196, 198 (D.D.C.2013) (“The 2010 Amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 ... and the accompanying Advisory Committee Notes do not proh......
-
Part two: case summaries by major topic.
...with legal mail. (Atlantic County Justice Facility, New Jersey) U.S. District Court EXPERT WITNESS Grimes v. District of Columbia, 923 F.Supp.2d 196 (D.D.C. 2013). A juvenile detainee's mother filed a [section] 1983 action against the District of Columbia for violation of the Eighth Amendme......