DocketNumber： 93-1296
Filed Date： 7/21/1993
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/21/2015
July 20, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
___________________
No. 93-1296
ELEANOR A. BENT,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
__________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
___________________
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
______________
___________________
Eleanor A. Bent on brief pro se.
_______________
Frank E. Reardon, Michael J. Racette and Hassan & Reardon on
________________ __________________ ________________
brief for appellees Massachusetts General Hospital and Cornelius
Grania, M.D.
Susan H. Williams and Taylor, Anderson & Travers on brief
_________________ ___________________________
for appellee Falmouth Hospital.
James A. Polcari and Dunn & Rogers on brief for appellee
________________ ______________
Alan Cordts, M.D.
Jennifer Ellis Burke and Taylor, Anderson & Travers on brief
____________________ __________________________
for appellee South Shore Hospital.
John M. Dellea and Ficksman & Conley on brief for appellees
_______________ _________________
Burton Mendel, M.D. and Lahey Clinic Foundation.
__________________
__________________
Per Curiam. We conclude that the district court
__________
properly dismissed plaintiff's action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff complained of the treatment she and her mother
received from various private doctors and other health care
providers. She contended the providers' conduct was so
egregious as to amount to a deprivation of her constitutional
rights to privacy, life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. Because the defendants are all private actors,
plaintiff has failed to state any viable federal civil rights
claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Mendez v. Belton, 739 F.2d 15,
________________
17 (1st Cir. 1984). At best, plaintiff set forth state law
causes of action. As complete diversity of citizenship is
lacking between the parties, the federal district court did
not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the state law claims and
properly dismissed the action. Lundquist v. Precision Valley
_____________________________
Aviation, Inc., 946 F.2d 8, 10 (1st Cir. 1991) ("Under 28
______________
U.S.C. 1332(a)(1), there is diversity of citizenship if the
plaintiff is a `citizen' of a different state than all of the
___
defendants.") (emphasis added); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d
___________________
1221, 1229 (9th Cir. 1984) (absent diversity, district court
has no subject matter jurisdiction over medical malpractice
claim against private defendants).
Affirmed.
________
-2-