Reginald Williams v. Columbus Regional Healthcare Systems, Inc.

Case: 12-11122 Date Filed: 12/03/2012 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-11122
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:11-cv-00028-CDL
REGINALD WILLIAMS,
M.D.,
NICOLE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
COLUMBUS REGIONAL HEALTHCARE
SYSTEMS, INC.,
DOCTORS HOSPITAL,
MEDICAL CENTER, et al.,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(December 3, 2012)
Before CARNES, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-11122 Date Filed: 12/03/2012 Page: 2 of 4
Reginald Williams, an African-American male, appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 complaint for failure to state a claim. In his
complaint, Williams alleged that Columbus Regional Healthcare Systems, Inc.,
Howard Weldon, Andrew Morley, Scott Hannay, and John Does A-J (collectively,
Appellees) intentionally interfered with his right to the full and equal benefit of
the laws and his right to contract with third parties on the basis of his race. After
review,1 we affirm the district court.
“To state a claim for non-employment discrimination under § 1981, a
plaintiff must allege (1) he is a member of a racial minority, (2) the defendant
intended to racially discriminate against him, and (3) the discrimination concerned
one or more of the activities enumerated in the statute.” Jimenez v. WellStar
Health System, 596 F.3d 1304, 1308 (11th Cir. 2010). The rights enumerated in
the statute include the right to the full and equal benefit of all laws and
proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white
citizens, and the right to make and enforce contracts. 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a).
1
We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Hill v. White, 321 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th
Cir. 2003). We accept the allegations in the complaint as true, and construe them in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff. Id.2
Case: 12-11122 Date Filed: 12/03/2012 Page: 3 of 4
Williams contends the Appellees interfered with his equal enjoyment of the
laws and proceedings afforded by the hospitals’ bylaws in depriving him of his
medical staff privileges. However, we have previously held the suspension of
medical staff privileges cannot be challenged in a § 1981 claim because under
Georgia law, medical staff bylaws do not create a contractual right to the
continuation of those privileges, and physicians do not have a broad property
interest in continuing to practice medicine. Jimenez, 596 F.3d at 1309-11. Thus,
Williams’ argument is foreclosed by our holding in Jimenez, and he cannot allege
a § 1981 violation because he has not identified a protected liberty or property
interest with which the Appellees interfered.
Additionally, we have previously held that alleging suspension of medical
staff privileges does not implicate any contractual relationship, and cannot be the
basis of a § 1981 discrimination claim. Id. at 1310. Thus, Williams’ claims of
interference with his right to contract all fail because they are predicated on the
suspension or revocation of his medical staff privileges. Because he has no
protected contractual interest in the continuation of his hospital staff privileges, he
has no cognizable claim that Weldon interfered with his contract with the hospitals
at which he worked. Similarly, he cannot raise a claim that the Appellees
interfered with his patient contracts because the Appellees’ only action affecting
3
Case: 12-11122 Date Filed: 12/03/2012 Page: 4 of 4
those contracts was the limitation of his medical staff privileges. Finally, he
cannot raise a claim of interference with future employment contracts because
such contracts are too speculative. See id.
AFFIRMED.
4