The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
07-1600•PATRICIA AUSTIN Plaintiff, DENNIS MCLAIN, as personal representative of the Estate… v. Securecare, Incorporated
07-1600United States Court Of Appeals For The 6th CircuitDec 22, 2008
The Hon. Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge of the United States Court of International Trade,*
sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 08a0775n.06
Filed: December 22, 2008
No. 07-1600
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
PATRICIA AUSTIN
Plaintiff,
DENNIS MCLAIN, as personal representative of the
Estate of Anthony Gilhouse
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SECURECARE, INCORPORATED; KATHY
HEBERT-LAGINESS, R.N.; ANNE LATULIP-
GARIEPY; DARYL TYRONE PARKER, M.D.;
JAMES GARRETT
Defendants-Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
BEFORE: Daughtrey, Rogers, Circuit Judges, and Restani, Judge.*
ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Dennis McLain, on behalf of the Estate of Anthony
Gilhouse, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants SecureCare,
Inc., Daryl Tyrone Parker, M.D., James Garrett, R.N., Anne Latulip-Gariepy, L.P.N., and Kathy
Hebert-Laginess, R.N. Plaintiff brought this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 07-1600
Austin v. Secure Care, Inc., et al.
- 2 -
of Gilhouse’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiff claims that defendants’ deliberate
indifference to Gilhouse’s serious medical needs resulted in Gilhouse’s death from an asthma attack.
After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, and hearing oral argument, this
court determines that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a panel opinion and affirms the
district court’s decision for the reasons stated in Judge Edmunds’ April 24, 2007, opinion and order.
The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of all remaining defendants. The
judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.