United States of America v. Allied Physicians Incorporated Sleep Centers of Fort Wayne LLC

Filing 158

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the report and recommendation 155 and finding no clear error therein, the Court ADOPTS it in its entirety and incorporates Magistrate Judge Collin's recommendations into this Order. Ac cordingly, the Court now DENIES the motion to strike 148 , and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion for judgment on the pleadings 145 insofar as any claim under the Indiana Medicaid Fraud Statute is dismissed, while Howze's remaining claims against Sleep Centers still remain. The deputy clerk will contact counsel to set a telephonic status conference so that this case may move forward. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 2/16/2017. (rmc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
STATE OF INDIANA,
YORK HOWZE, Relator,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SLEEP CENTERS OF FORT WAYNE, )
LLC,
)
)
Defendant.
)

CAUSE NO. 1:11-CV-035-JD-SLC

ORDER
The procedural history of this case began about six years ago, as detailed in this Court’s
previous order [DE 143 at 102]. Both the federal government and state have declined to
intervene, and at this point in time, the only claims that remain are Counts I and II as alleged
against Defendant Sleep Centers. Defendant Sleep Centers filed a Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings [DE 145] and a Motion to Strike Howze’s response brief because it was filed three
days late [DE 148]. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Susan Collins [DE 154] to issue
a Report and Recommendation. That Report and Recommendation has issued [DE 155] and
indicates that: (1) the motion to strike should be denied as the minor delay in filing did not
warrant striking a brief helpful to a merits determination; and (2) that because Howze admits that
no private cause of action under the Indiana Medicaid Fraud statute exists, any such claim ought
to be dismissed, while Howze’s remaining theories under the Fair Claims Act and Indiana False
Claims and Whistleblower Protection Act have been sufficiently pled. As of this date, no party
has filed an objection to the report and recommendation.

The Court’s review of a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation is governed by
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), which provides in part:
A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the
report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also
receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) also directs that the Court must only make a de novo determination of those
portions of the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation to which specific written
objection has been made. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). If no
objection or only a partial objection is made, the Court reviews those unobjected portions for
clear error. Id. In addition, failure to file objections with the district court “waives appellate
review of both factual and legal questions.” Id. Under the clear error standard, the Court can
only overturn a Magistrate Judge’s ruling if the Court is left with “the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been made.” Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d
926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997).
The Magistrate Judge set forth the facts under the appropriate standard of review and
provided a thorough explanation for the determinations made therein. Understandably, no party
has contested those findings. Having reviewed the report and recommendation [DE 155] and
finding no clear error therein, the Court ADOPTS it in its entirety and incorporates Magistrate
Judge Collin’s recommendations into this Order. Accordingly, the Court now DENIES the
motion to strike [DE 148], and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion for
judgment on the pleadings [DE 145] insofar as any claim under the Indiana Medicaid Fraud
Statute is dismissed, while Howze’s remaining claims against Sleep Centers still remain. The
2

deputy clerk will contact counsel to set a telephonic status conference so that this case may move
forward.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: February 16, 2017
/s/ JON E. DEGUILIO
Judge
United States District Court

3