Lewis v. Elkton Nursing and Rehabilitation Center

D. Delaware

Lewis v. Elkton Nursing and Rehabilitation Center

District Court, D. Delaware·Decided February 10, 2023·No. 1:20-cv-00884·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ROBERT CHARLES LEWIS, Plaintiff, V. Civ. No. 20-884-CFC ELKTON NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, : Defendant. MEMORANDUM ORDER At Wilmington this jo™™ day of February, 2023, having considered Defendant’s motion to dismiss (D.I. 21); IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (D.I. 21) is DENIED for the following reasons: l. Plaintiff Robert Charles Lewis proceeds pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 4) On December 21, 2020, the Court screened the Complaint, identified what appeared to be cognizable and non- frivolous claims within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and entered a service order. (D.I.5) The case was dismissed when Plaintiff failed to timely return documents necessary for service, but was subsequently reopened. (D.I. 7,

15) On May 23, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (D.I. 21). es The legal standard used when screening cases for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is identical to the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal standard. See Vaughn v. Markey, 813 F. App’x 832, 833 (3d Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (citing Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000)). Nothing has changed since the Complaint was screened. In addition, the Court must liberally construe the Complaint. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In doing so, the Court concludes that the allegations and claims of fraud contained in the Complaint are sufficient to withstand the instant motion to dismiss and, therefore, denies the motion.

Kh

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ROBERT CHARLES LEWIS, Plaintiff, V. Civ. No. 20-884-CFC ELKTON NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, : Defendant. MEMORANDUM ORDER At Wilmington this jo™™ day of February, 2023, having considered Defendant’s motion to dismiss (D.I. 21); IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (D.I. 21) is DENIED for the following reasons: l. Plaintiff Robert Charles Lewis proceeds pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 4) On December 21, 2020, the Court screened the Complaint, identified what appeared to be cognizable and non- frivolous claims within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and entered a service order. (D.I.5) The case was dismissed when Plaintiff failed to timely return documents necessary for service, but was subsequently reopened. (D.I. 7,

15) On May 23, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (D.I. 21). es The legal standard used when screening cases for failure to state a claim pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is identical to the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal standard. See Vaughn v. Markey, 813 F. App’x 832, 833 (3d Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (citing Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000)). Nothing has changed since the Complaint was screened. In addition, the Court must liberally construe the Complaint. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In doing so, the Court concludes that the allegations and claims of fraud contained in the Complaint are sufficient to withstand the instant motion to dismiss and, therefore, denies the motion.

Kh

Lewis v. Elkton Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, (D. Del. 2023).

Pincite

Lewis v. Elkton Nursing and Rehabilitation Center (Lewis v. Elkton Nursing and Rehabilitation Center) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related