Louis Paul Toscano v. Magellan Health Services, also known as Green Spring of New Jersey, also known as…

CLD-409 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-2560
________________
LOUIS PAUL TOSCANO,
Appellant
v.
MAGELLAN HEALTH SERVICES,
also known as Green Spring of New Jersey,
also known as Merit Behavioral Care
______________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-04832)
District Judge: Honorable Garrett E. Brown, Jr.
_______________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action
Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and IOP 10.6
September 27, 2007
Before: RENDELL, SMITH and JORDAN, Circuit Judges
(Filed: October 18, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
This is an appeal from the district court’s dismissal of Louis Paul Toscano’s
amended complaint filed against Magellan Health Services (“Magellan”). For the

-- 1 of 4 --

On this same date, Toscano also filed separate complaints against AT&T and1
Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (“CGLIC”) in the District of New Jersey.
See D.C. Nos. 05-cv-03539, 05-cv-04833. Both of these actions and the action
underlying this appeal were consolidated for the purposes of discovery only. Appeals by
Toscano in his actions against CGLIC and AT&T are currently pending before this court.
See C.A. Nos. 07-1629, 07-2438.
Toscano also made numerous claims concerning the circumstances of his2
termination from AT & T. As we further explain, it is unclear how Magellan, as a
provider of health services, was a party to any of these transactions.
-2-
following reasons, we will dismiss this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
I.
On October 6, 2005, Toscano initiated this action by filing a complaint against
Magellan. In this complaint he primarily alleged that he had been diverted, against his1
will, into AT&T’s permanent disability program which is managed, in part, by Magellan.2
Because of this designation, Toscano argued, he was unable to obtain the vocational
rehabilitation services he requires in order to re-enter the workforce. Magellan moved for
summary judgment and the district court, construing the request as one under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), dismissed the complaint without prejudice on February
26, 2007, for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In its order, the
district court granted Toscano leave to file an amended complaint within ten days, which
he did on March 27, 2007. In his amended complaint, Toscano argued that Magellan was
in a position to know that his termination from AT&T was improper and that, after his
termination from AT&T, Magellan had failed to provide services that would allow him to
transition back to the workforce. Magellan moved to dismiss Toscano’s amended

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
complaint. In an opinion and separate order entered on May 10, 2007, the district court
dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. Toscano filed a timely notice of appeal.
II.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because Toscano
has been granted in forma pauperis status, we review this appeal for possible dismissal
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Section 1915(e)(2)(B) authorizes dismissal of an
appeal if it has no arguable basis in law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
325 (1989). This court’s review of a district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is
plenary. See Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 183 (3d Cir. 1993). A motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) “tests the sufficiency of the allegations contained in the
complaint.” Id.
III.
The district court correctly determined that Toscano’s amended complaint,
invoking the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Vocational Rehabilitation of 1973,
failed to state a claim against Magellan that could entitle him to any relief. Magellan, a
health care management organization, is authorized to administer AT&T’s mental health
and substance abuse benefits under AT&T’s group insurance program for its employees.
As a benefits program administrator for AT&T, Magellan was simply not in a position to
act in any way related to Toscano’s termination from AT&T nor to modify Toscano’s

-- 3 of 4 --

Toscano, in fact, conceded in his amended complaint that he “realiz[ed] that3
some aspects of this case were not within the control of [Magellan].”
-4-
disability status. Further, as the district court noted, these decisions rested with his3
former employer, AT&T. Additionally, Toscano alleged no monetary harm as a result of
Magellan’s actions or inactions concerning his status.
In sum, because Toscano’s appeal lacks arguable legal merit, we will dismiss it
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Toscano’s motions for emergent relief and to
compel records are denied.

-- 4 of 4 --