Elkharwily v. Mayo Health System - Southeast Minnesota Region

Filing 438

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.,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

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,
Defendants.

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.

The matter

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.

28

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
correct.

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
“extremely deferential.”

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).

Plaintiff objects

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:
1.

The objection and appeal [ECF No. 435] is denied;

2.

The

Findings

of

Fact

and

Conclusions

of

Law

and

Recommendation and Order [ECF No. 432] is adopted and upheld in its
entirety;

2

3.

The contempt order dated April 13, 2017 [ECF No. 324] is

purged;
4.

Plaintiff

is

ordered

to

pay

defendants’

reasonable

attorney’s fees for the enforcement of the order dated May 3, 2017
[ECF No. 344];
5.

Defendants shall submit a request for attorney’s fees and

costs within fourteen days of this order;
6.

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
7.

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

3