UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
July 23, 2008
NATHAN ANTOINE, PLAINTIFF,
WEXFORD MEDICAL SERVICES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Clifford J. Proud U.S. Magistrate Judge
PROUD, Magistrate Judge:
Before the court is plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery. (Doc. 64). Defendants Hulick, Gladson, and Grubman filed a response at Doc. 68.
This motion concerns interrogatories that were at issue in plaintiff's previous motion to compel, Doc. 58. The court sustained defendants' objections and denied the previous motion. See, Doc. 62. It appears that plaintiff mailed the instant motion before he received a copy of Doc. 62.
Because this motion raises issues that have already been ruled on, this motion is moot. The court notes plaintiff's argument that "deliberate indifference can be shown through unprofessional actions." Doc. 64, ¶5. That statement is incorrect. Negligence or even gross negligence do not constitute deliberate indifference. See, Walker v. Peters, 233 F.3d 494, 499 (7th Cir. 2000); Perkins v. Lawson, 312 F.3d 872, 875 (7th Cir. 2002) (stating that even gross negligence does not constitute deliberate indifference). Thus, questions about defendants' educational background, training, licensure, and similar issues are not relevant to a claim for deliberate indifference.
For the reasons stated in Doc. 62, plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery (Doc. 64) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.