Opinion
Case No. 5:09-cv-114
02-28-2017
ELIEL NTAKIRUTIMANA, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. LAREDO TEXAS HOSPITAL COMPANY, L.P., D/B/A LAREDO MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL., Defendants.
AMENDED MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court is in receipt of the Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (hereinafter, "Motion" or "Summary Judgment Motion") filed by five of the seven remaining defendants in this lawsuit. Dkt. No. 486. The five defendants moving for partial summary judgment are Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation ("CHSPSC"); Webb Hospital Corporation ("WHC"); Laredo Texas Hospital Company, L.P., d/b/a Laredo Medical Center ("LMC"); Michael T. Portacci; and Wayne Smith (collectively referred to as "Defendants"). Id. at 1-2. Plaintiffs are Eliel Ntakirutimana, M.D. ("Dr. Ntaki"); and his business, Anesthesia Healthcare Partners of Laredo, P.A. ("AHP"); and Jose Berlioz, M.D. ("Dr. Berlioz"); and his business, Jose Berlioz M.D., P.A., d/b/a Safari Pediatrics ("Safari Pediatrics"). Dkt. No. 440 at 1.
The other two remaining defendants are Abraham Martinez and Argelia Martinez. See Dkt. No. 440 at 1.
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and 28 U.S.C. § 1367. --------
Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on numerous grounds. See generally Dkt. No. 486. In "Plaintiffs' Response to Non-Martinez Defendants' Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment" (hereinafter, "Plaintiffs' Response"), Plaintiffs state that they will abandon some of their claims "in the interests of judicial economy[,]" and in order "to narrow the disputed issues for trial[.]" Dkt. No. 513 at 22, 24, 35. Specifically, Plaintiffs state that:
1. Dr. Berlioz will not proceed with his claims under Count 5;Id.
2. Dr. Ntaki and AHP will not proceed with their claims under Counts 8 and 11; and,
3. Plaintiffs will forego their claims under Count 10.
Accordingly, it is recommended that Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion (Dkt. No. 486) be granted, in part. Specifically, it is recommended that the Court dismiss the following claims against Defendants with prejudice:
1. Dr. Berlioz' claims under Count 5;
2. Dr. Ntaki and AHP claims under Counts 8 and 11; and,
3. Plaintiffs' claims under Count 10.
Relatedly, it is recommended that the Court grant Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice (hereinafter, Plaintiffs' "Motion"). Dkt. No. 521. Plaintiffs filed their Motion after the Court issued its Report and Recommendation, dated February 23, 2017, and after Plaintiffs filed their "Limited Objections" to that same Report and Recommendation. See Dkt. No. 522. Plaintiffs' Limited Objections correctly point out that the Court's Report and Recommendation mistakenly recommended the dismissal of Count 7, even though Plaintiffs' Response did not state that Plaintiffs wished to abandon Count 7. Consistent with their Limited Objections, and this Amended Report and Recommendation, Plaintiffs' Motion seeks the dismissal of:
1. Dr. Berlioz' claims under Count 5;Dkt. No. 521 at 2.
2. Dr. Ntaki and AHP claims under Counts 8 and 11; and,
3. Plaintiffs' claims under Count 10.
Accordingly, and in sum, it is recommended that Plaintiffs' Motion (Dkt. No. 521) be granted, and that Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion (Dkt. No. 486) be granted, in part, as specified herein.
Notice to the Parties
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation within fourteen days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been served with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996).
Signed on this 28th day of February, 2017.
/s/ _________
Ignacio Torteya, III
United States Magistrate Judge