25-159-cv Jane Doe v. Glenn M. Seliger

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 16th day of December, two thousand twenty-five.

Present:

ROBERT D. SACK, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, EUNICE C. LEE, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________

JANE DOE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. 25-159-cv GLENN M. SELIGER, LINDA EGENES, 1-100 JOHN DOES, KATHLEEN MARTUCCI, JACQUELINE VELEZ, JOHN MATHEW,

Defendants-Appellees. ∗ _________________________________________

For Plaintiff-Appellant: THUY Q. PHAM, The Law Office of Thuy Q. Pham, New York, NY

∗ The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption on this Court’s docket to be consistent with the caption on this order. 1 For Defendants-Appellees: TINA S. BHATT (Daniel J. Tarolli, on the brief), Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford P.C., New York, NY

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of

New York (Philip M. Halpern, District Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-Appellant Jane Doe appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court

for the Southern District of New York, entered on December 17, 2024. On March 16, 2020, Doe

brought suit against several employees of Helen Hayes Hospital, a rehabilitation center owned and

operated by New York State’s Department of Health. Doe’s operative complaint asserts twelve

claims for various violations of the U.S. Constitution and New York law. On February 28, 2024,

the district court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, (1) finding that it lacked

jurisdiction over Doe’s first through fifth claims because they arose under the Medicare Act,

(2) dismissing Doe’s sixth claim on the merits, and (3) declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction

over Doe’s remaining state law claims. On March 27, 2024, Doe filed a motion for

reconsideration. On December 17, 2024, the district court denied this motion in part, modifying

its decision only to dismiss Doe’s first five claims without prejudice. Doe now appeals.

Upon careful consideration of the reasons stated by the district court, we AFFIRM the

judgment.

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

2