not among the list of outstanding counts against Defendant that was subsequently provided by Plaintiff (pursuant to Magistrate Judge Kravchuk's October 24, 2002, Report of Telephone Conference and Amended Scheduling Order (Docket Item No. 41)). See Status Report re: Remaining Counts against Sally Schofield (Docket Item No. 60). Accordingly, the Court will not consider Counts VII and XIII. Plaintiff seeks summary judgment with respect to liability on each of the remaining eight counts against Defendant. 2 . Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s situation is analogous to that of a physician who has contracted with the state to provide medical care to prison inmates, and, in particular, Plaintiff urges the Court to consider West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988) (<HOLDING>). However, the Court is not persuaded that
holding that a state agency created under state law was a state actor holding that such a physician was a state actor under  1983 holding that a physician under contract with north carolina to provide medical services to prison inmates was a state actor for purposes of  1983 recognizing such a claim under  1983 holding that amtrak was a state actor