UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
March 17, 2008
LAWRENCE DAVIS, JR. PLAINTIFF,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Emmet G. Sullivan United States District Judge
Document Nos. 15, 25, 27
In this civil action against multiple defendants, plaintiff alleges that he was denied proper medical treatment for a foot problem during his confinement at the District of Columbia's Correctional Treatment Facility ("CTF") between 2001 and 2003. Defendant Diamond Pharmacy Services moves to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. For the following reasons, the motion will be granted and the case dismissed.*fn1
Because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the court officers are responsible for effecting service. Plaintiff was not provided the opportunity to cure the problems arising from serving the movant; therefore, he will not be penalized for any service deficiencies. Rather, defendant rightly claims that dismissal is warranted because the complaint fails to state a federal claim.*fn2 The complaint does not specify the basis of this Court's jurisdiction but it is presumed to be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a § 1983 claim, plaintiff must allege that he was deprived of a constitutional right by an individual acting under color of state law. Plaintiff accuses Diamond Pharmacy only of failing to deliver "medications and supplies" to Correctional Corporation of America., Compl. at 5, which allegedly resulted in a delay in his treatment. Pl.'s Opp. at 2. Even if these facts are proven true, they do not allege a constitutional violation and, thus, cannot sustain a § 1983 claim.
In the absence of a federal claim against the movant, the Court grants Diamond Pharmacy Services' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over what at best is a negligence claim. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.