United States of America et al v. Health Management Associates Inc.
Filing
136
OPINION AND ORDER denying 127 Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint; adopting as modified 135 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 1/21/2016. (KP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
USA and J. MICHAEL MASTEJ,
ex rel.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No: 2:11-cv-89-FtM-29MRM
HEALTH MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES
INC. and NAPLES HMA, LLC,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. #135), filed
December 30, 2015, recommending that Relator J. Michael Mastej’s
Motion for Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. #127) be
DENIED.
No objections have been filed, and the time to do so has
passed.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings
and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify
a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir.
1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983).
In the absence of
specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge
review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776,
779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations.
U.S.C.
§
636(b)(1)(C).
The
district
judge
reviews
28
legal
conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection thereto.
See Cooper-Hous. v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994);
Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla.
1993), aff’d, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (Table).
After conducting an independent examination of the file, and
upon due consideration of the Report and Recommendation, the Court
accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge with
one modification.
This Court does not read the Eleventh Circuit’s
Opinion (Doc. #109) as limiting Relator – as a matter of law – “to
claims prior to October 2007” (Doc. #135, p. 9), such that allowing
Relator to file a Fourth Amended Complaint containing allegations
regarding events after that time “would be futile.”
(Id. p. 10.)
Rather, the Circuit Court held that the Third Amended Complaint’s
allegations regarding interim claims submitted to or paid by the
government after Relator ended his employment in October 2007 did
not satisfy Rule 9(b)’s “particularity requirement” and thus did
not state a claim for violations of the False Claims Act (FCA), 31
U.S.C. § 3729 et seq.
(Doc. #109, pp. 38-39.)
Accordingly,
Relator was permitted to proceed only as to “2007 interim claims
submitted to and paid by the government before [Relator] ended his
employment in October 2007.”
(Id. p. 38.)
- 2 -
Nevertheless, the Court agrees that granting Relator leave to
amend
would
be
futile.
None
of
the
additions
contained
in
Relator’s proposed Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. #127-1) remedy
the Third Amended Complaint’s (Doc. #79) failure to plead with the
requisite particularity FCA violations occurring after Relator
ended his employment in October 2007.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1.
The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #135) is hereby
adopted as modified and the findings incorporated herein.
2.
Relator J. Michael Mastej’s Motion for Leave to File
Fourth Amended Complaint (Doc. #127) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 21st day of
January, 2016.
Copies:
Hon. Mac R. McCoy
United States Magistrate Judge
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented parties
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?