Luis David Flecha, Jr. v. Yes Care Healthcare Service, et al.

E.D. Kentucky

Luis David Flecha, Jr. v. Yes Care Healthcare Service, et al.

District Court, E.D. Kentucky·Decided April 22, 2026·No. 5:24-cv-00359·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION LEXINGTON LUIS DAVID FLECHA, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 5:24-cr-00359-GFVT-HAI v. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION YES CARE HEALTHCARE SERVICE, ) & et al., ) ORDER ) Defendant. ) *** *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram. [R. 60.] In December 2024, pro se Plaintiff Luis David Flecha, Jr. brought this action against several Defendants associated with the Fayette County Detention Center. [R. 1.] The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Ingram to conduct all pretrial proceedings, including overseeing discovery, and Judge Ingram entered a scheduling order commencing discovery on September 15, 2025. [R. 35; R. 36.] Discovery was set to close on February 13, 2026, and on February 12, 2026, Plaintiff Flecha moved to extend discovery. [R. 49.] That motion remains pending. On March 9, 2026, Plaintiff Flecha moved for default judgment, citing the Defendants alleged failure to produce certain documents in discovery as grounds for his motion. [R. 54.] That motion also remains pending. On March 13, 2026, the Defendants filed their respective Motions for Summary Judgment. [R. 56; R. 58.] These motions similarly remain pending. Then, on March 27, 2026, Plaintiff Flecha filed a “Motion for Withdrawal,” in which he stated that he wished to “withdraw his claim at this time.” [R. 59 at 1.] As grounds, Plaintiff Flecha provides that he is unable to pay for the “excessive amount of postage involved in this case,” and he is unable to “understand what is being asked of her pertaining to the constitutional violations against him and as such [he is] unable to represent himself in this matter.” Id. Judge Ingram construed Plaintiff Flecha’s Motion as a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). [R. 60 at 2.] Because the Defendants have

already responded to the Complaint and there is no stipulation of dismissal signed by the parties, the action “may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2)). Judge Ingram recommends granting the Plaintiff’s request to “withdraw” his claims and terminate these proceedings. Id. Further, Judge Ingram recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, as the Defendants have expended effort and expense in litigating this case and filing motions for summary judgment. Id. at 3. Judge Ingram’s Report advised the parties that any objections to the Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. Id. The time to file objections has passed, and neither party has objected nor sought an extension of time to do so.

Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). When no objections are made, this Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard . . . .” See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151 (1985). Parties who fail to object to a magistrate’s report and recommendation are also barred from appealing a district court’s order adopting that report and recommendation. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Here, neither party has filed an objection to the adoption of this Report and Recommendation. Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record, and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Judge Ingram’s Recommendation [R. 60] is ADOPTED and as for the Opinion of the Court; 2. Plaintiff Flecha’s “Motion for Withdrawal,” construed as a Rule 41(a)(2) Motion for Voluntary Dismissal [R. 59] is GRANTED; 3. The Complaint [R. 1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 4. All pending motions [R. 49; R. 54; R. 56; R. 58] are DENIED AS MOOT; and 5. Judgment will be entered accordingly.

This the 22nd day of April, 2026.

Gregory F*Van Tatenhove United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION LEXINGTON LUIS DAVID FLECHA, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 5:24-cr-00359-GFVT-HAI v. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION YES CARE HEALTHCARE SERVICE, ) & et al., ) ORDER ) Defendant. ) *** *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram. [R. 60.] In December 2024, pro se Plaintiff Luis David Flecha, Jr. brought this action against several Defendants associated with the Fayette County Detention Center. [R. 1.] The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Ingram to conduct all pretrial proceedings, including overseeing discovery, and Judge Ingram entered a scheduling order commencing discovery on September 15, 2025. [R. 35; R. 36.] Discovery was set to close on February 13, 2026, and on February 12, 2026, Plaintiff Flecha moved to extend discovery. [R. 49.] That motion remains pending. On March 9, 2026, Plaintiff Flecha moved for default judgment, citing the Defendants alleged failure to produce certain documents in discovery as grounds for his motion. [R. 54.] That motion also remains pending. On March 13, 2026, the Defendants filed their respective Motions for Summary Judgment. [R. 56; R. 58.] These motions similarly remain pending. Then, on March 27, 2026, Plaintiff Flecha filed a “Motion for Withdrawal,” in which he stated that he wished to “withdraw his claim at this time.” [R. 59 at 1.] As grounds, Plaintiff Flecha provides that he is unable to pay for the “excessive amount of postage involved in this case,” and he is unable to “understand what is being asked of her pertaining to the constitutional violations against him and as such [he is] unable to represent himself in this matter.” Id. Judge Ingram construed Plaintiff Flecha’s Motion as a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). [R. 60 at 2.] Because the Defendants have

already responded to the Complaint and there is no stipulation of dismissal signed by the parties, the action “may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2)). Judge Ingram recommends granting the Plaintiff’s request to “withdraw” his claims and terminate these proceedings. Id. Further, Judge Ingram recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, as the Defendants have expended effort and expense in litigating this case and filing motions for summary judgment. Id. at 3. Judge Ingram’s Report advised the parties that any objections to the Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. Id. The time to file objections has passed, and neither party has objected nor sought an extension of time to do so.

Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). When no objections are made, this Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard . . . .” See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151 (1985). Parties who fail to object to a magistrate’s report and recommendation are also barred from appealing a district court’s order adopting that report and recommendation. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Here, neither party has filed an objection to the adoption of this Report and Recommendation. Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record, and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Judge Ingram’s Recommendation [R. 60] is ADOPTED and as for the Opinion of the Court; 2. Plaintiff Flecha’s “Motion for Withdrawal,” construed as a Rule 41(a)(2) Motion for Voluntary Dismissal [R. 59] is GRANTED; 3. The Complaint [R. 1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 4. All pending motions [R. 49; R. 54; R. 56; R. 58] are DENIED AS MOOT; and 5. Judgment will be entered accordingly.

This the 22nd day of April, 2026.

Gregory F*Van Tatenhove United States District Judge

Luis David Flecha, Jr. v. Yes Care Healthcare Service, et al., (E.D. Ky. 2026).

Pincite

Luis David Flecha, Jr. v. Yes Care Healthcare Service, et al. (Luis David Flecha, Jr. v. Yes Care Healthcare Service, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related