Charles A. Temple, et al. (No. 03-5198) v. R.j. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

*The Honorable Walter Herbert Rice, District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 04a0037n.06
Filed: October 20, 2004
Case Nos. 03-5195, 03-5198
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
JOANNE ANDERSON, et al. (No. 03-5195),
CHARLES A. TEMPLE, et al. (No. 03-5198),
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE MIDDLE
DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
BEFORE: SUHRHEINRICH and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges; RICE,* District Judge.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs in these consolidated diversity
actions, all of whom claim tobacco-related injuries and are recipients of the Tennessee Medicaid
program, “TennCare,” appeal the district court’s orders dismissing all of their claims against the
defendants. Plaintiffs bring federal claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, and state law
claims for unjust enrichment and conspiracy to convert funds belonging to the plaintiffs, all arising
out of the Master Settlement Agreement (“MSA”), which settled the State of Tennessee’s tobacco
litigation with various tobacco companies, including these defendants. The plaintiffs claim that the
defendants, by entering into and complying with the terms of the MSA, deprived plaintiffs of their
property rights in their causes of action for injuries caused by tobacco-related products, in violation

-- 1 of 3 --

2
of the Fourteenth Amendment; conspired to deprive the plaintiffs of their civil rights; and failed to
prevent the deprivation of their constitutionally protected rights. Plaintiffs further argue that the
litigation resulting in the MSA was essentially a subrogation action to recover medical expenses paid
on behalf of Plaintiffs as TennCare recipients; that under Tennessee law, Plaintiffs must be made
whole for their injuries before the State of Tennessee may obtain such reimbursement; that the
Plaintiffs have not been made whole for their injuries; and that the MSA therefore violates
Tennessee law because it directs the Tobacco defendants to reimburse the state of Tennessee for
medical expenses paid on behalf of Plaintiffs as Medicaid recipients without first making Plaintiffs
whole for their tobacco-related injuries.
The district court granted the defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss,
holding that the plaintiffs could prove no set of facts in support of their claims that would entitle
them to relief. The district court dismissed the Section 1983 claims because the plaintiffs could not
identify any property right protected by the Constitution or by federal law of which they have been
deprived. The court dismissed the Section 1985 and 1986 claims because the plaintiffs did not
allege any class-based animus. Finally, the district court held that the state law claims failed because
they were wholly dependent upon a finding that the MSA lawsuit was a subrogation action, which
it was not.
We have carefully reviewed the district court’s opinions, the record, the applicable law, the
parties’ briefs and counsels’ arguments, and we are convinced that the district court did not err in
its conclusions. As the district court’s opinion carefully and correctly sets out the law governing the
issues raised, and clearly articulates the reasons underlying its decision, issuance of a full written

-- 2 of 3 --

3
opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the
district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.

-- 3 of 3 --