Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Shuper v. Cady

United States District Court, D. Maine

December 4, 2014

ALLA IOSIFOVNA SHUPER, Plaintiff,
v.
SAMUEL CADY, M.D., et al., Defendants.

ORDER ON ALL PENDING MOTIONS

GEORGE Z. SINGAL, District Judge.

1. Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Before the Court are Plaintiff Alla Iosifovna Shuper's Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF Nos. 5, 12 & 16). The Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action.

2. Motion To Change The Name Of The Defendant

Also before the Court is Plaintiff Shuper's Motion to Change the Name of the Defendants (ECF Nos. 19 & 20) to Robert Samuel Cady, M.D. and Maine Eye Center, which is GRANTED.

3. Motions For Reconsideration

Also before the Court are two Motions for Reconsideration (ECF Nos. 3 & 4) and the Motion to Amend the Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 6). All of these Motions pertain to the Court's November 18, 2014 Order requesting that Plaintiff either pay the filing fee or file a request to proceed in forma pauperis in each of her docketed cases. (See Order (ECF No. 2).) In light of the Court's decision to grant Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds all of these requests for reconsideration (ECF Nos. 3, 4 & 6) MOOT.[1] The Court notes that similar motions for reconsideration were filed in each of Plaintiff's then twenty-four cases.[2]

3. Appeal To The Chief Judge

Plaintiff Shuper has also filed an Appeal to the Chief Judge (ECF No. 7). To the extent that Plaintiff Shuper is appealing the Court's November 18, 2014 Order to the Chief Judge, there is no such right to appeal to the Chief Judge, and it is therefore DENIED. As with the Motion for Reconsideration and the Motion to Amend the Motion for Reconsideration, pro se Plaintiff Shuper's Appeal to the Chief Judge was filed in each of her then twenty-four cases.

4. Change In Pro Se Filing Status

Plaintiff Shuper has also filed a Motion to Accept the Change in Pro Se Filing, thereby requesting that she be permitted to file documents manually rather than electronically (ECF No. 9). The Court GRANTS the Motion, which has also been filed in each of her cases.

5. Review Of The Complaint Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

Upon the Court's review of the Complaint, the Court concludes that the case must be dismissed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Through the handwritten Complaint, Plaintiff Shuper attempts to bring a case against Samuel Cady, M.D. and Maine Eye Center.

The Complaint alleges that Dr. Cady was Plaintiff Shuper's ophthalmologist from 2008 or 2010 until 2013 and that he determined that Plaintiff Shuper has a thin cornea and that the nerves in her eyes are "a little suspicious." (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at 1.) The Complaint alleges that despite the diagnoses, Dr. Cady: (1) only scheduled appointments once per year (id. ¶ 1); (2) told her to use warm water on her infected eyes (id. ¶ 2); (3) did not tell her to use special, antibacterial tissues (id. ¶ 3); (4) asked why she was no longer a patient of a particular doctor (id. ¶ 4); (5) did not transfer her records to a particular doctor (id. ¶ 5); (6) did not indicate in her records that she had a thin cornea (id. ¶ 6); (7) did not mail requested documents even though Plaintiff Shuper signed a release (id. ¶ 7); and (8) did not ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.