Annie L. Hairston v. Medicare Insurance, et al.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ANNIE L. HAIRSTON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:24-CV-00524-BL-SMD ) MEDICARE INSURANCE, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER1

On July 2, 2024, Plaintiff Annie Hairston, proceeding pro se, filed this action in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama. (See Doc. 1-1 at 3-4). On August 16, 2024, this action was removed to this court. (Doc. 1). On March 11, 2025, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint asserting a state law medical malpractice claim against Defendant Dr. Robert Howell (“Dr. Howell”), a negligence claim against Defendant Baptist Medical Center South (“Baptist”) for failure to train and/or supervise Dr. Howell, and an unspecified claim against Defendant Medicare Insurance (“Medicare”), who was her insurer at the time of the surgery. (See Doc. 25). On June 1, 2026, Defendant Medicare filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint against it pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Doc. 52). On July 29, 2026, the Magistrate Judge

1 The above-styled case was reassigned to the undersigned District Judge on November 12, 2025. recommended that this court grant Defendant Medicare’s Motion to Dismiss and remand this case to the Montgomery County Circuit Court. (Doc. 59). On August

11, 2026, the Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 60). A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings

or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3)

(“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.”). A district court’s obligation to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed

findings or recommendations to which objection is made” requires a district judge to “give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party.” United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673, 675 (1980) (internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in Raddatz). Further, the Eleventh

Circuit has recognized that “[p]arties filing objections to a magistrate [judge’s] report and recommendation must specifically identify those findings objected to.” Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988). “Frivolous, conclusive,

or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Id. In her objections, the Plaintiff merely restates facts that the Magistrate Judge considered in his recommendation and fails to challenge a specific factual finding or

legal conclusion of the Magistrate Judge. Moreover, the court finds that the objections asserted by the Plaintiff constitute the kind of frivolous, conclusive, or general objections that the Eleventh Circuit has found need not be considered by the

district court. See Marsden, 847 F.2d at 1548. Because the Plaintiff failed to identify an error in the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings or legal conclusions, the court OVERRULES the Plaintiff’s objections, (doc. 60). After careful review of the file and upon consideration of the recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge, the court ADOPTS the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, and for good cause, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendant Medicare’s Motion to Dismiss (doc. 52) is GRANTED and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Medicare is DISMISSED with prejudice.2

2 The Magistrate Judge’s recommendation is silent as to whether to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Medicare with or without prejudice. Here, because any further amendment would be futile, the court dismisses the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Medicare with prejudice. See Daker v. Bryson, 841 F. App’x 115, 123 (11th Cir. 2020) (stating that the “general rule against dismissal with prejudice without notice does not apply if the claim is patently frivolous or if amendment would be futile”). 2. The remaining claims against Defendant Dr. Howell and Defendant Baptist shall be REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama. 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to take all steps necessary to effectuate the remand and close this case. The Court will enter a separate final judgment. DONE and ORDERED on this the 13th day of August, 2026. AE _ BILL LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE