Opinion
No. 106,447.
2013-03-8
John SCHOEMANN, Appellant, v. Sam CLINE and State of Kansas, et al., Appellees.
Appeal from Reno District Court; Joseph L. McCarville III, Judge. John Schoemann, appellant pro se. Jon D. Graves, legal counsel, of Kansas Department of Corrections, of Hutchinson, for appellees State of Kansas ex rel. Dept. of Corrections Hutchinson Correctional Facility, Roger Werholtz, Elizabeth Rice, and Sam Cline.
Appeal from Reno District Court; Joseph L. McCarville III, Judge.
John Schoemann, appellant pro se. Jon D. Graves, legal counsel, of Kansas Department of Corrections, of Hutchinson, for appellees State of Kansas ex rel. Dept. of Corrections Hutchinson Correctional Facility, Roger Werholtz, Elizabeth Rice, and Sam Cline.
John D. Graves, legal counsel, of Kansas Department of Corrections, of Hutchinson, and Victoria D. Tindall, assistant attorney general, of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for appellees Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Justin Jones, Lesia Miser and Don Suttmiller.
James P. Nordstrom and Teresa L. Watson, of Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith, L.L.P., of Topeka, for appellee Flora Virginia Elizabeth Miller.
Bradley S. Russell and Tracy M. Hayes, of Sanders Warren & Russell, LLP, of Overland Park, for appellees Correct Care Solutions, Debra Lundry, Kristi Taylor, Shirley Bebout, and Bonnie Schmidt.
Shannon L. Holmberg and Michael R. O'Neal, of Gilliland & Hayes, P.A., of Hutchinson, for appellee Larry Bumguardner.
Before MALONE, C.J., McANANY, J., and KNUDSON, S.J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff John Schoemann is an Oklahoma prisoner being housed at the Hutchinson Correctional Facility (HCF) through the Interstate Compact Agreement. In this suit Schoemann asserted claims against Diamond Drugs, a pharmaceutical company, and various Kansas and Oklahoma state entities and individuals, claiming he was deprived of adequate medical care and disability assistance while incarcerated. Schoemann settled his claims against Diamond. Through various orders of dismissal and summary judgment, the district court disposed of Schoemann's remaining claims.
Schoemann now appeals, claiming the district court erred in (1) dismissing his Eighth Amendment claim for failure to state a claim of deliberate indifference to his claimed serious medical needs; (2) dismissing HCF and the Kansas Department of Corrections because they lacked the capacity to be sued; (3) dismissing the Kansas defendants on account of Schoemann's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies; (4) dismissing nurse Liz Miller for failure to perfect service of process over her; (5) abusing its discretion in not granting Schoemann leave to file his “third amended complaint”; (6) dismissing the State of Oklahoma for failure to comply with the notice provisions of the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act; (7) dismissing Dr. Larry Bumguardner for failure to perfect service of process over him; and (8) granting summary judgment in favor of Correct Care Solutions based on Schoemann's failure to designate a medical expert to testify regarding his claims of medical negligence and constitutionally inadequate medical care.
The district court ruled on these various matters in a series of comprehensive and well-drafted opinions that thoroughly explain the district court's analysis of each issue. We have thoroughly examined the record on appeal, including the various dispositive motions and the district court's consideration of each of them. We find no error with respect to the district court's analysis on each of these issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 7.042(b)(5) (2012 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 63).
Affirmed under Rule 7.042(b)(5).