Elkharwily v. Mayo Holding Company et al
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 432 Report and Recommendation. (Written Opinion) Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 11/20/2017. (DLO)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 12-3062(DSD/SER)
Alaa E. Elkharwily, M.D.,
Mayo Holding Company, a corporation,
d/b/a Mayo Health System, d/b/a
Mayo Clinic Health System, d/b/a
Albert Lea Medical Center - Mayo
Health System, Mayo Clinic Health
System - Albert Lea, a corporation,
Mayo Foundation, Mark Ciota, M.D.,
John Grzybowski, M.D., Dieter
Heinz, M.D., Robert E. Nesse, M.D.,
Steve Underdahl, and Stephen Waldhoff,
This matter is before the court upon the objection and appeal
by plaintiff Alaa Elkharwily of Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau’s
October 18, 2017, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and
Recommendation and Order (R&R and Order).
The extensive background of this matter is set forth in the
court’s previous orders and will not be repeated here.
currently before the court is limited to plaintiff’s objection to
and appeal of the R&R and Order.
With respect to the R&R,
Magistrate Judge Rau recommended that the court (1) purge the
contempt order dated April 13, 2017, (2) order plaintiff to pay
defendants’ reasonable attorney’s fees for the enforcement of the
order dated May 3, 2017, (3) order defendants to submit a request
for attorney’s fees and costs within fourteen days of the adoption
of the R&R, and (4) advise plaintiff that if he violates the
protective order in the future, the court will issue a bench
warrant for his arrest to coerce compliance.
The court reviews the report and recommendation de novo.
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); D. Minn. L.R.
72.2(b). After a thorough review of the file and record, the court
finds that the report and recommendation is well-reasoned and
Plaintiff’s objections are therefore overruled.
In the Order, Magistrate Judge Rau denied plaintiff’s request
for the appointment of counsel and ordered that certain documents
be placed under seal.
The standard of review applicable to an
appeal of a magistrate judge’s order on nondispositive matters is
Reko v. Creative Promotions, Inc., 70 F.
Supp. 2d 1005, 1007 (D. Minn. 1999).
The court will reverse such
an order only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); D. Minn. LR 72.2(a)(3).
only to the denial of his request for counsel.
The court finds no
error in that decision.
Accordingly, based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
The objection and appeal [ECF No. 435] is denied;
Recommendation and Order [ECF No. 432] is adopted and upheld in its
The contempt order dated April 13, 2017 [ECF No. 324] is
attorney’s fees for the enforcement of the order dated May 3, 2017
[ECF No. 344];
Defendants shall submit a request for attorney’s fees and
costs within fourteen days of this order;
Plaintiff is advised that if he violates the protective
order [ECF No. 47] in the future, the court will issue a bench
warrant for his arrest to coerce compliance; and
Plaintiff’s objection to the denial of his request for
the appointment of counsel is overruled.
Dated: November 20, 2017
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court
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?