Keshtgarpour v. Henry Ford Health System et al

Filing 22

ORDER (1) Overruling Plaintiff's 19 Objections to 17 Report and Recommendation Dated August 14, 2018, (2) Adopting the 17 Report and Recommendation and Its Recommended Disposition, (3) Granting Defendant's 8 and 10 Motion to Dismiss, and (4) Dismissing Action With Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MANI KESHTGARPOUR,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-12917
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION DATED AUGUST 14, 2018 (ECF # 19), (2)
ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #17) AND
ITS RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION, (3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF ## 8, 10), AND (4) DISMISSING ACTION
WITH PREJUDICE
In 2004, Plaintiff Mani Keshtgarpour, M.D., began a one-year medical
residency with Defendant Henry Ford Health System (“Henry Ford”). In June of
2005 – one month before the residency program was scheduled to end – Henry Ford
terminated Keshtgarpour from the program due to his consistent poor performance.
When Henry Ford ended Keshtgarpour’s participation in the program, it informed
him that it would not issue him “a graduation certificate.” (Complaint, ECF #1 at Pg.
ID 309.) Twelve years later, Keshtgarpour, proceeding pro se, filed his Complaint
in this action.

The Complaint (including exhibits) spans nearly 500 pages.

Keshtgarpour seeks “Two Hundred Million U.S. Dollars” in money damages and an

1

order compelling Henry Ford to issue what Keshtgarpour calls a “Certificate of
Completion.” (Id. at Pg. ID 6.)
Henry Ford filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on the ground that, among
other things, any claims that Keshtgarpour could possibly be asserting – it is difficult
to discern from the Complaint precisely which claims Keshtgarpour intends to bring
– would be barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. (See Mot. and Amended
Mot., ECF ## 8, 10.) The assigned Magistrate Judge has issued a thorough and wellreasoned Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) in which he suggests that the
Court grant Henry Ford’s motion. (See R&R, ECF #17.) Keshtgarpour has filed
objections to the R & R (the “Objections”). (See ECF #19.) For the reasons
explained below, the Objections are OVERRULED, Henry Ford’s motion is
GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
I
A
When a party has objected to portions of a Magistrate Judge’s R&R, the Court
reviews those portions de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also Lyons v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 351 F.Supp.2d 659, 661 (E.D. Mich. 2004). The Court has no
duty to conduct an independent review of the portions of the R&R to which a party
has not objected. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

2

B
“To survive a motion to dismiss” under Rule 12(b)(6), “a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible
when a plaintiff pleads factual content that permits a court to reasonably infer that
the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. See id. When assessing the
sufficiency of a plaintiff’s claim, a district court must accept all of a complaint's
factual allegations as true. See Ziegler v. IBP Hog Mkt., Inc., 249 F.3d 509, 512 (6th
Cir. 2001). “Mere conclusions,” however, “are not entitled to the assumption of
truth. While legal conclusions can provide the complaint's framework, they must be
supported by factual allegations.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 664. A plaintiff must therefore
provide “more than labels and conclusions,” or “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. “Threadbare recitals of
the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
II
The bulk of the Objections simply restate Keshtgarpour’s grievances against
Henry Ford and do not address the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that
Keshtgarpour’s claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. (See
3

Objections, ECF #19 at Pg. ID 649-57.) Since these portions of the Objections do
not address the basis of the recommendation for dismissal, they are not relevant to
the matter before the Court, and there is no ruling for the Court to make with respect
to them.
The Court turns now to the portions of the Objections that do relate to the
statute of limitations issue. Keshtgarpour first seems to argue that the applicable
limitations period was “tolled” from 2005 – when Henry Ford terminated his
participation in the residency program and told him that it would not issue a
graduation certificate – until 2017, when he again requested a certificate and Henry
Ford stood by its earlier decision not to issue one. (Objections, ECF #19 at Pg. ID
657-59.) But Keshtgarpour offers no authority to support of this tolling theory. And
the Court is aware of none. Accordingly, this aspect of Keshtgarpour’s Objections
is OVERRULED.
Keshtgarpour next insists that the limitations period was tolled from 2005
until 2017 because he was pursuing postgraduate academic training during this
period. (See id. at Pg. ID 661-62.) But he offers no authority in support of his
argument that a limitations period is tolled while a plaintiff is enrolled in higher
education classes. And the Court is aware of none. Accordingly, this aspect of
Keshtgarpour’s Objections is OVERRULED.

4

Finally, Keshtgarpour appears to argue that his claims are not time-barred
because he received a stipend rather than a salary. (See id. at Pg. ID 662.) The Court
does not understand this argument and sees no basis on which it undermines the
Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Keshtgarpour’s claims are time-barred.
Accordingly, this aspect of Keshtgarpour’s Objections is OVERRULED.
III
For the reasons explained above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Keshtgarpour’s Objections to the R&R (ECF #19) are OVERRULED;
2. The R&R (ECF #17) is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court;
3. Henry Ford’s motion to dismiss (ECF ## 8, 10) is GRANTED; and
4. Keshtgarpour’s Complaint (ECF #1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Dated: September 11, 2018

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on September 11, 2018, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

5