From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ibrahim v. Murfreesboro Med. Clinic, P.A.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
Oct 22, 2012
Case No. 3:12-cv-1019 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 22, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 3:12-cv-1019

10-22-2012

SHEMEKA IBRAHIM, Plaintiff, v. MURFREESBORO MEDICAL CLINIC, P.A., DR. ANDREW H. FORD, SLEEP MEDICINE OF MIDDLE TENNESSEE, and DR. KELLY A. CARDEN, Defendants.


Judge Sharp


ORDER

On the same day the Court entered an order dismissing the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (ECF No. 4), plaintiff Shemeka Ibrahim filed a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 7), apparently to correct grammatical errors in the original complaint.

To the extent the amended complaint might be construed as a motion for permission to amend the complaint or as a motion to reconsider dismissal of the case, such motion, however construed, is without merit and is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. The proposed amendment does not affect the fundamental defect in the original complaint, as it too fails to state a claim over which this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction.

It is so ORDERED.

___________

Kevin H. Sharp

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Ibrahim v. Murfreesboro Med. Clinic, P.A.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
Oct 22, 2012
Case No. 3:12-cv-1019 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 22, 2012)
Case details for

Ibrahim v. Murfreesboro Med. Clinic, P.A.

Case Details

Full title:SHEMEKA IBRAHIM, Plaintiff, v. MURFREESBORO MEDICAL CLINIC, P.A., DR…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

Date published: Oct 22, 2012

Citations

Case No. 3:12-cv-1019 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 22, 2012)