Hutchinson Consultants, PC v. Federal Occupational Health

Case: 15-11817 Date Filed: 12/17/2015 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________

No. 15-11817
________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-03560-WSD

HUTCHINSON CONSULTANTS, PC,
DR. LESLIE HUTCHINSON,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

FEDERAL OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, et al,

Defendants,

JOHN OR JANE DOE,
an employee of Federal Occupational Health, a Non-Appropriated
Agency within the United States Department of Health and Human
Services, in his or her individual capacity,
TISHA MARIE TITUS, M.D.,
RICHARD J. MILLER, M.D.,

Defendants – Appellees,

STG INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Interested Party.
 Case: 15-11817 Date Filed: 12/17/2015 Page: 2 of 3

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________

(December 17, 2015)

Before WILSON and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and BUCKLEW,∗

District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

This case came before the Court for oral argument. The appeal presented

the following issues:

(1) Whether Plaintiffs pleaded facts sufficient to allege deprivation of a

property interest in violation of the substantive component of the Due

Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

(2) Whether Hutchinson pleaded facts sufficient to allege Defendants deprived

him of his liberty interest in reputation in violation of the substantive

component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

(3) Whether Plaintiffs pleaded facts sufficient to allege deprivation of a

property interest and liberty interest without adequate process in violation of

the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

∗
Honorable Susan C. Bucklew, United States District Judge for the Middle District of
Florida, sitting by designation.
2
 Case: 15-11817 Date Filed: 12/17/2015 Page: 3 of 3

(4) Whether Plaintiffs pleaded facts sufficient to allege violation of the equal

protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

(5) Whether the district court erred in dismissing as moot Plaintiffs’ Motion to

Join STG as a Necessary Party and Motion for Leave to File a Third

Amended Complaint.

(6) Whether the district court erred in dismissing defendant Doe.

(7) Whether the district court erred in failing to provide Plaintiffs with

additional opportunity to be heard before issuing its basis for dismissal.

(8) Whether qualified immunity insulates the remaining Defendants from suit.

After carefully considering the law, the record, the parties’ briefs, and after oral

argument, we hold there is no reversible error.

AFFIRMED.

3