Tommy Dukes v. State of Georgia , 212 F. App'x 916 ( 2006 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
December 28, 2006
No. 06-12572 THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 03-00406-CV-JOF-1
TOMMY DUKES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF GEORGIA,
COWETA COUNTY,
MIKE YEAGER, Sheriff,
individually and in his official capacity,
SGT. BOBBY STROZIER,
MAJOR BLAKE ADCOCK, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(December 28, 2006)
Before DUBINA and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and CORRIGAN,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Tommy Dukes filed suit in the Northern District of Georgia raising both
federal and state-law claims related to his arrest on February 20, 2001 and
subsequent medical treatment received during his incarceration in the Coweta
County Jail. The district court asserted supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent
state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Defendants in the suit were the State of
Georgia, Coweta County, Sheriff Mike Yeager, Major Blake Adcock, Sgt. Bobby
Strozier, Nurse Jennie Adcock, Dr. Miriam Burnett & MJB Health Services, Inc.
(collectively “Dr. Burnett”), Integrated Regional Laboratories (“IRL”), and ECHA
Peachtree, LLC & ECHA, LLC (collectively “Emory”). The district court granted
summary judgment on the Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claims
against Sheriff Yeager, Major Adcock, Nurse Adcock and Coweta County; ADA
and Rehabilitation Act claims against Coweta County; a deliberate indifference
claim against Dr. Burnett; state-law negligence claims against IRL and Emory; and
Fourth Amendment claims against Sgt. Strozier. Dukes appeals the district court’s
grant of various defendants’ motions to exclude Dukes’s experts Dr. Greifinger
and Dr. McGinnis, and the district court’s grants of summary judgment in favor of
*
Honorable Timothy J. Corrigan, United States District Judge for the Middle District of
Florida, sitting by designation.
2
all defendants.
After considering the briefs and record in this case, and after having the
benefit of oral argument, we find no error in the district court’s exclusion of
Dukes’s experts or in its grants of summary judgment. Accordingly we affirm.
However, we note that a number of Dukes’s state-law claims were dismissed
without prejudice and may be refiled in state court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c),
“district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [pendent
state] claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has
original jurisdiction.” In this case, the district court dismissed all federal claims
without ruling on the merits of Dukes’s pendent state-law claims against Dr.
Burnett, Sheriff Yeager, or Nurse Adcock. The only state-law claims for which the
district court granted summary judgment were negligence claims against IRL and
Emory. When the district court dismissed the case, it declined to exercise
jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Thus, those claims are dismissed
without prejudice. Crosby v. Paulk, 187 F.3d 1339, 1352 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding
that if the district court decides to dismiss pendent state-law claims, “then they
should be dismissed without prejudice so that the claims may be refiled in the
appropriate state court”). Furthermore, under § 1367, the statute of limitations of
the remaining pendent claims “shall be tolled while the claim[s are] pending and
3
for a period of 30 days after [they are] dismissed unless State law provides for a
longer tolling period.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d).
AFFIRMED.
4