Wilhelm

Wilhelm v. Rotman

Bad Law
680 F.3d 1113·2012 WL 1889786·2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10647
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 25, 201211-16335California4,205 words

Opinion

Opinion

Graber, J.

Plaintiff Steven Hairl Wilhelm filed a pro se complaint, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , against certain prison medical providers— Dr. Aron Rotman and Dr. Calvin Schuster. Plaintiff alleged that the providers’ delay in treating his hernia amounted to deliberate indifference to his medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. At the screening stage, a magistrate judge dismissed the case for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff appeals, arguing that his complaint properly stated a claim for relief. Plaintiff also contests the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction to dismiss his complaint with prejudice, arguing that he did not consent to jurisdiction by that particular magistrate judge.

We hold that (1) Plaintiff voluntarily consented to the jurisdiction of any magistrate judge, including the one who decided his ease; (2) the allegations against Dr. Schuster cannot support a deliberate indifference claim because they amount to a claim of negligence; and (3) the allegations against Dr. Rotman are sufficient to warrant ordering him to file an answer. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.