Opinion
No. 3:04cv0241 AS.
April 19, 2006
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This court takes full judicial notice of the record in this case which commenced with the filing pro se by George H. Harvey on or about April 1, 2004, now two years ago. This court is also keenly aware of the implications of Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). But see McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993). This court haw now given close attention to the Report and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein on or about March 29, 2006, the filings made by this pro se plaintiff on April 11, 2006, and most recently the response by the United States of America filed on or about April 14, 2006.
This is an attempt by this pro se plaintiff to breathe life into a medical malpractice claim filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) approximately six years ago. The magistrate judge has given very close detailed attention to the factual setting of this case. To put it somewhat crudely, the FTCA borrows significant chunks of state law, in this case from the State of Indiana. Here, that law is reflected in published decisions of the two highest courts in Indiana as well as enactments by the General Assembly of Indiana. See Bader v. Johnson, 730 N.E. 2d 1212 (Ind. 2000), and Bowman v. Beghin, 713 N.E. 2d 913 (Ind.App. 1999). See also I.C. 34-18-12-2.
The magistrate judge has recommended that the oral motion of the United States for partial findings should be denied, and this court agrees. The magistrate judge also recommends that judgment be entered in favor of the United States and against this plaintiff, and once again this court is in complete agreement. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly in favor of the United States of America. Each party will bear its own costs. IT IS SO ORDERED.