Elkharwily v. Mayo Holding Company et al

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)

Download PDF
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

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?