Lemay v. Correct Care Solutions/Wellpath Inc.

M.D. Tennessee

Lemay v. Correct Care Solutions/Wellpath Inc.

DecidedJuly 28, 2020

Docket3:19-cv-00683

StatusUnknown

This text of Lemay v. Correct Care Solutions/Wellpath Inc. (Lemay v. Correct Care Solutions/Wellpath Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lemay v. Correct Care Solutions/Wellpath Inc., (M.D. Tenn. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

LARRY LEE LEMAY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) NO. 3:19-cv-00683 v. ) JUDGE RICHARDSON ) CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, et al, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Pending before the Court is a Sealed Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 45), recommending that Defendant Wellpath LLC (“Wellpath”)’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Sanctions, and to Exclude All References in the Record to a Confidential Settlement Agreement (Doc. No. 35) be granted in part and denied in part. No Objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. The failure to object to a report and recommendation releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. Frias v. Frias, No. 2:18-cv-00076, 2019 WL 549506, at * 2 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 12, 2019); Hart v. Bee Property Mgmt., No. 18-cv-11851, 2019 WL 1242372, at * 1 (E.D. Mich. March 18, 2019) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The district court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, those aspects of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made. Ashraf v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., 322 F. Supp. 3d 879, 881 (W.D. Tenn. 2018); Benson v. Walden Security, No. 3:18-cv-0010, 2018 WL 6322332, at * 3 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 4, 2018). The district court should adopt the magistrate judge’s findings and rulings to which no specific objection is filed. Id. Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the file. The Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved. Accordingly, Wellpath’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Sanctions, and to Exclude All References in the Record to a Confidential Settlement Agreement (Doc. No. 35) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. As such, the Court hereby orders that any reference to the settlement agreement made by the Parties be done so under seal. And, as further recommended by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff is forewarned that that any failure to comply with this requirement may result in the imposition of sanctions. Finally, the Clerk is directed to file Docket Numbers 26, 30, 31 and 44 under seal. IT IS SO ORDERED.

ChE Ruchardsorn chi Rech UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

LARRY LEE LEMAY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) NO. 3:19-cv-00683 v. ) JUDGE RICHARDSON ) CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, et al, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Pending before the Court is a Sealed Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 45), recommending that Defendant Wellpath LLC (“Wellpath”)’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Sanctions, and to Exclude All References in the Record to a Confidential Settlement Agreement (Doc. No. 35) be granted in part and denied in part. No Objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. The failure to object to a report and recommendation releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. Frias v. Frias, No. 2:18-cv-00076, 2019 WL 549506, at * 2 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 12, 2019); Hart v. Bee Property Mgmt., No. 18-cv-11851, 2019 WL 1242372, at * 1 (E.D. Mich. March 18, 2019) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The district court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, those aspects of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made. Ashraf v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc., 322 F. Supp. 3d 879, 881 (W.D. Tenn. 2018); Benson v. Walden Security, No. 3:18-cv-0010, 2018 WL 6322332, at * 3 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 4, 2018). The district court should adopt the magistrate judge’s findings and rulings to which no specific objection is filed. Id. Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the file. The Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved. Accordingly, Wellpath’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Sanctions, and to Exclude All References in the Record to a Confidential Settlement Agreement (Doc. No. 35) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. As such, the Court hereby orders that any reference to the settlement agreement made by the Parties be done so under seal. And, as further recommended by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff is forewarned that that any failure to comply with this requirement may result in the imposition of sanctions. Finally, the Clerk is directed to file Docket Numbers 26, 30, 31 and 44 under seal. IT IS SO ORDERED.

ChE Ruchardsorn chi Rech UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lemay v. Correct Care Solutions/Wellpath Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lemay-v-correct-care-solutionswellpath-inc-tnmd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack