Lynn v. Kaiser Foundation Hospital et al

Filing 29

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 16 Memorandum and Recommendations. No clear error appears upon review and consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation, the record, and the applicable law. The Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this Court. Dkt 16. A final judgment will enter separately. (Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified. (jmg4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
June 05, 2024
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
PAMELA LYNN and
WILSON LYNN, JR,
Plaintiffs,

§ CIVIL ACTION NO
§ 4:24-cv-00935
§
§
§
vs.
§ JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
§
§
KAISER FOUNDATION §
HEALTH PLAN INC,
§
et al,
§
Defendants. §
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on March 13, 2024, naming
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc, the State of
California, 23 other named Defendants, and Does 1–100,
and alleging claims arising out of Plaintiff Pamela Lynn’s
hospitalization in California in 2019. Dkt 1. The matter
was referred for pretrial management to Magistrate Judge
Christina A. Bryan. Dkt 15.
Pending is a Memorandum and Recommendation by
Magistrate Judge Christina A. Bryan recommending that
this case be dismissed without prejudice for improper
venue. Dkt 16. She also recommends denying Plaintiffs’
Motions to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkts 10, 11.
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of
a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC §636(b)(1)(C); see
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no
clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v

PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
Plaintiffs have not filed specific objections to the
Memorandum and Recommendation.
Plaintiffs have
objected to the referral to Magistrate Judge Bryan because
they did not consent. Dkts 17, 18. But this matter was
referred to Magistrate Judge Bryan pursuant to 28 USC
§636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 for report
and recommendation. The case was not transferred to the
Magistrate Judge based on consent pursuant to 28 USC
§636(c) and Rule 73. This District Judge is the presiding
judge.
No clear error appears upon review and consideration
of the Memorandum and Recommendation, the record, and
the applicable law.
The Memorandum and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum
and Order of this Court. Dkt 16.
A final judgment will enter separately.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on June 5, 2024, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Hon. Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge

2