Garland v. New England

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
George C. Garland
v. Case No. 17-cv-171-JD
New England
O R D E R
George C. Garland, who is proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed a complaint that was subject to preliminary
review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Local Rule 4.3(d)(1).
Based on that review, the magistrate judge found that Garland’s
claims appeared to be frivolous and failed to state a cognizable
cause of action. The magistrate judge recommended that the
complaint be dismissed pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B).
In response, Garland filed a motion to unseal the case and
for appointment of counsel in which he provided more detail
about the subject matter of his complaint. The magistrate judge
issued a supplemental report and recommendation, applying the
standard under § 1915(e)(2) with consideration of the additional
detail in the motion. The magistrate judge again recommended
that the complaint be dismissed but without prejudice to
Garland’s ability to assert claims against Concord Hospital and
Case 1:17-cv-00171-JD Document 12 Filed 11/17/17 Page 1 of 3

2
Camp Fatima in state court. In a separate order, the magistrate
judge granted Garland’s motion to unseal his case, as provided
in the order, and denied his request for appointed counsel.
Garland then filed a motion to enter evidence into the
record (document no. 11), including medical records, and asked
to have specified medical providers release his medical records.
He filed fifteen pages of medical records with the motion and
conventionally filed a disk, which he represents contains
recordings. The medical records contain personal identifiers
that are listed in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1.
Because that filing makes such information available through the
internet, good cause exists to prohibit nonparties from access
to the motion. Therefore, the clerk of court shall limit remote
access to that motion pursuant to Rule 49.1.
Garland also filed an objection to the initial report and
recommendation, which recites his interaction with court
personnel and discusses a case that appears to have been in
state court. After due consideration of Garland’s objection, I
approve the report and recommendation dated October 16, 2017,
and the supplemental report and recommendation, dated November
1, 2017.
Case 1:17-cv-00171-JD Document 12 Filed 11/17/17 Page 2 of 3

3
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the report and recommendation
issued on October 16, 2017, (document no. 5) and the
supplemental report and recommendation issued on November 1,
2017, (document no. 8) are approved and adopted.
The complaint (document no. 1) is dismissed without
prejudice to Garland’s ability to assert claims against Concord
Hospital or Camp Fatima under state law in any state court with
jurisdiction over such claims.
Garland’s motion to enter evidence (document no. 11) is
denied as moot. The clerk of court shall limit remote access to
Garland’s motion to enter evidence (document no. 11) pursuant to
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1. The clerk of court
shall return the disk filed with document no. 11 to Garland.
The clerk of court shall enter judgment accordingly and
close the case.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
Joseph DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge
November 17, 2017
cc: George C. Garland, pro se
Case 1:17-cv-00171-JD Document 12 Filed 11/17/17 Page 3 of 3