IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
HAROLD KIYUKLOOK, Individually,
and as Legal Guardian of M.K., a
minor child,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00089-SLG
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
ORDER RE UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the Court at Docket 34 is a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
filed by Defendant United States. The United States moves for summary judgment
as to Beverly LeMaster and community health aides Lisa Toolie, Lila Akeya,
Dorothy Kava, and Judith Pelowook, asserting that “[s]ummary judgment is
appropriate as to these providers because Plaintiff has not established under the
Federal Tort Claims Act (‘FTCA’), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2401(b), 2671-80 and
Alaska medical malpractice law that these deemed federal employees breached
the standard of care.”1 Plaintiff Harold Kiyuklook responded in non-opposition at
Docket 36.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) directs a court to “grant summary
1 Docket 34 at 1-2.
judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” The burden of
showing the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact lies with the movant.2 If
the movant meets this burden, the non-moving party must demonstrate “specific
facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”3
Because there is no dispute of material fact as to the claims against Beverly
LeMaster and community health aides Lisa Toolie, Lila Akeya, Dorothy Kava, and
Judith Pelowook, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the United States’ Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment at Docket 34 is GRANTED.
DATED this 8th day of November 2024, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986).
3 Id. at 324 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49
(1986).
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.