Wilhite v. Parr-Mirza et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KEENAN BAILEY WILHITE,
Plaintiff,
v.
ERIN PARR-MIRZA,
JULIANA MARTINO,
ANGELA JOSEPH,
WELLPATH SERVICES, and
KIM FARRIS,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:24-cv-11815
District Judge Linda V. Parker
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti
___________________________________/
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO
GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
PROCEED WITH LAWSUIT (ECF No. 32), LIFT THE STAY AS TO
INDIVIDUAL WELLPATH DEFENDANTS MARTINO, JOSEPH, AND
FARRIS (see ECF No. 31), and GRANT DEFENDANT WELLPATH,
L.L.C.’S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGE
AND CONFIRMATION ORDER (ECF No. 39)
I. 	RECOMMENDATION: The Court should GRANT IN PART and DENY
IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to proceed with lawsuit (ECF No. 32), lift the stay as
to individual Wellpath Defendants Martino, Joseph, and Farris (see ECF No. 31),
and GRANT Defendant Wellpath L.L.C.’s motion to dismiss based on bankruptcy
discharge and confirmation order (ECF No. 39).
Case 2:24-cv-11815-LVP-APP ECF No. 47, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/23/25 Page 1 of 11

2
II. 	REPORT
A. 	Background
Keenan Bailey Wilhite (#779594) is currently incarcerated in the Michigan
Department of Corrections (MDOC) Carson City Correctional Facility (DRF).
(ECF No. 45.) In July 2024, while located at Ionia Correctional Facility (ICF),
Wilhite filed this prisoner civil rights lawsuit in the Western District of Michigan
in pro per against five Defendants, each associated with the MDOC’s Macomb
Correctional Facility (MRF). (ECF No. 1; see also ECF No. 11.) See Case No.
1:24-cv-00680 (W.D. Mich.) Plaintiff’s case was transferred to this Court on July
15, 2024. (ECF Nos. 3, 4.)
The appearances of counsel signal that Defendant Parr-Mirza is an MDOC
employee, and Defendant Wellpath employs (or employed) Defendants Martino,
Joseph, and Farris. (ECF Nos. 13, 23, 46.)1
B. 	In re Wellpath Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:24-bk-90533 (ARP)
(Bankr. S.D. Tex.)
On January 30, 2025 – more than six months after Plaintiff initiated this case
1 On July 24, 2025, Judge Parker entered an opinion and order (ECF No. 41)
adopting my report and recommendation (ECF No. 33) and denying MDOC
Defendant Parr-Mirza’s exhaustion-based motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
15). Accordingly, if the Court accepts the recommendations contained within this
report, the case will proceed as to MDOC Defendant Parr-Mirza and Wellpath
Defendants Martino, Joseph, and Farris.
Case 2:24-cv-11815-LVP-APP ECF No. 47, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/23/25 Page 2 of 11

3
– Defendant Wellpath filed a suggestion of bankruptcy and notice of stay (ECF
No. 24), and, on the same day, Defendants Martino, Joseph, and Farris filed an
emergency motion to extend the stay to non-debtor individuals (ECF No. 25). On
April 24, 2025, this Court issued a stay as to Defendant Wellpath and temporarily
extended the bankruptcy stay as to the individual Wellpath Defendants. (See ECF
No. 31.)
Since then, there have been at least two significant developments in the
bankruptcy case. First, on May 1, 2025, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Alfredo R. Pérez
entered his findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order: (1) confirming the
first amended joint Chapter 11 plan of reorganization of Wellpath Holdings, Inc.
and certain of its debtor affiliates; and, (2) approving the disclosure statement on a
final basis. (ECF No. 36-1; ECF No. 39-1.) As to confirmation, Judge Pérez
determined:
All requirements for the Confirmation of the Plan have been satisfied.
Accordingly, the Plan, in its entirety, is CONFIRMED pursuant to
section 1129 of the Bankruptcy Code. Each of the terms and
conditions of the Plan (including the Plan Supplement) and the
applicable Definitive Documents (and any amendments,
modifications, and supplements thereto), are integral parts of the Plan.
. . .
(Id., ¶ 2.) As to compromise of controversies, Judge Pérez determined:
Pursuant to section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule
9019, in consideration for the Plan Distributions and other benefits
provided under the Plan, and as a mechanism to effect a fair
distribution of value to the Debtors’ constituencies, the provisions of
Case 2:24-cv-11815-LVP-APP ECF No. 47, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/23/25 Page 3 of 11

4
the Plan shall also constitute a good faith compromise and settlement
of those Claims, Causes of Action, and controversies incorporated in
the Plan and are hereby approved. . . .
(Id., ¶ 6.) Second, on June 4, 2025, Judge Pérez entered a general form of order
regarding lift stay motions. (ECF No. 36-2.)
C. 	The Court should grant Plaintiff’s May 8, 2025 motion to proceed
with lawsuit (ECF No. 32), but only as to the individual Wellpath
Defendants.
This case has been referred to me for pretrial matters. Currently before the
Court is Plaintiff’s May 8, 2025 motion to proceed with lawsuit (ECF No. 32),
which is based on the April 30, 2025 conclusion of the bankruptcy matter.
On June 23, 2025, the Court entered a text-only order, which reminded the
Wellpath Defendants of their obligation to “file a memorandum by June 15, 2025
updating the Court as to the status of the bankruptcy proceedings and whether any
part of the current case has been resolved by settlement[,]” (ECF No. 31,
PageID.187), and required them to “SHOW CAUSE why the stay issued herein
should not be fully or partially lifted, or the Court will take action sua sponte.”
On June 24, 2025, the Wellpath Defendants responded to the Court’s June
23, 2025 text-only show cause order. (ECF No. 36.) In addition to attaching
copies of the above-mentioned bankruptcy court orders (see ECF Nos. 36-1, 36-2),
they assert that: (1) “as to non-debtor Defendants Angela Joseph, M.D., Kim
Farris, P.A., and Juliana Martino, N.P., the bankruptcy stay has been lifted, and
Case 2:24-cv-11815-LVP-APP ECF No. 47, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/23/25 Page 4 of 11

5
these proceedings may move forward as to them[;]” and, (2) “[a]s to Defendant
Wellpath, LLC, . . . consistent with the Wellpath Bankruptcy Plan and the
discharge of claims contained therein, Wellpath LLC intends to file a motion to
dismiss itself from this matter.” (ECF No. 36, PageID.247, 250.)
There being no dispute that the case should continue as to the individual
Wellpath Defendants, the Court should GRANT Plaintiff’s motion to the extent it
seeks to proceed with the lawsuit against Martino, Joseph, and Farris, and,
accordingly, lift the stay as to these Defendants (see ECF No. 31). However, the
Court should DENY Plaintiff’s motion to the extent it seeks to proceed with the
lawsuit against corporate Defendant Wellpath, L.L.C., for the reasons stated below.
D. 	The Court should grant Defendant Wellpath’s July 16, 2025
motion to dismiss (ECF No. 39).
Also before the Court is Defendant Wellpath’s July 16, 2025 motion to
dismiss based on bankruptcy discharge and confirmation order. (ECF No. 39.) In
sum, the corporate Defendant argues that “Plaintiff’s claims, as pled in this lawsuit,
are based on alleged conduct that arose prior to the bankruptcy plan’s effective
date and are thus barred by operation of 11 U.S.C. §§ 1141 and 524 and the terms
of the Plan and Confirmation Order.” (Id., PageID.318, ¶ 3.) Put another way,
Defendant Wellpath contends that “Plaintiff’s claims arise from conduct that
occurred prior to May 1, 2025,” i.e., the date of the bankruptcy court order, and,
thus, are “within the scope of claims discharged and enjoined under the Plan and
Case 2:24-cv-11815-LVP-APP ECF No. 47, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/23/25 Page 5 of 11

6
Confirmation Order.” (ECF No. 39, PageID.326.)
1. 	Did the alleged conduct occur prior to the bankruptcy
plan’s effective date?
Certainly, the allegations underlying his complaint pre-date the bankruptcy
court’s May 1, 2025 order. As set forth in my prior report and recommendation,
Plaintiff’s factual allegations span the period from an April 17, 2023 injury to
perhaps August 2023. (See ECF No. 33, PageID.195-196.) Moreover, Plaintiff
initiated this lawsuit in July 2024. (ECF Nos. 1, 3, 4.)
2. 	Are Plaintiff’s claims within the scope of claims discharged
and enjoined?
As for whether Plaintiff’s claims against Wellpath are “within the scope” of
claims “discharged and enjoined . . . [,]” the Court notes:
. . . the confirmation of a plan--(A) discharges the debtor from any
debt that arose before the date of such confirmation, and any debt of a
kind specified in section 502(g), 502(h), or 502(i) of this title, whether
or not--(i) a proof of the claim based on such debt is filed or deemed
filed under section 501 of this title; (ii) such claim is allowed
under section 502 of this title; or (iii) the holder of such claim has
accepted the plan[.]
11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(1)(A). “[A] bankruptcy court’s order confirming a plan
‘discharges the debtor from any debt that arose before the date of such
confirmation,’ except as provided in the plan, the confirmation order, or the code.”
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L. P., 603 U.S. 204, 214 (2024) (citing 11 U.S.C. §
1141(d)(1)(A)). See also Justen v. Wellpath LLC, No. 24-CV-50310, 2025 WL
Case 2:24-cv-11815-LVP-APP ECF No. 47, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/23/25 Page 6 of 11

7
2763490, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 2025) (citing 11 U.S.C. § 1141) (“A discharge
under § 1141 of the Bankruptcy Code discharges all debts that arose before
bankruptcy not covered by an exception.”).
Preliminarily, this report assumes that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant
Wellpath meet 11 U.S.C. § 101’s definitions of claim and debt. 11 U.S.C. §
101(5),(12). As for whether these claims (or debts) are covered by an exception,
Judge Pérez’s confirmation order set forth several “findings of fact” (see ECF No.
36-1, PageID.258-268; ECF No. 39-1, PageID.336-346), including the following
one related to “injunction, exculpation, release, indemnification, discharge,
settlement, and compromise[:]”
The Third-Party Release is supported by good and valuable
consideration, consensual as to all relevant parties, including all
Releasing Parties, and such parties (i) were provided notice of the
Chapter 11 Cases, the Plan, the deadline to object to Confirmation of
the Plan, and the scheduled Confirmation Hearing, (ii) received the
Confirmation Hearing Notice, a Ballot, and/or the Non-Voting Status
Notice, and (iii) were properly informed that any Holder of a Claim
against or Interest in the Debtors that did not check the “Opt Out” box
on the applicable Ballot or Opt Out Form or otherwise objected to the
Third-Party Release, returned in advance of the Voting Deadline (or
within 60 days after the Confirmation Date for incarcerated
individuals), would be deemed to have expressly, unconditionally,
generally, individually, and collectively consented to the release and
discharge of all Claims and Causes of Action against the Debtors and
the Released Parties. Additionally, the release provisions of the Plan
were conspicuous, emphasized with boldface type in the Plan, the
Disclosure Statement, the Ballots, the Non-Voting Status Notice, the
Confirmation Hearing Notice, and the Opt Out Form.
(ECF No. 36-1, PageID.266-267 ¶ V(4)(b); ECF No. 39-1, PageID.344-345 ¶
Case 2:24-cv-11815-LVP-APP ECF No. 47, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/23/25 Page 7 of 11

8
V(4)(b) (emphasis added).) Within his 53-paragraph order, Judge Pérez included a
provision regarding “opt out” by incarcerated individuals who have personal injury
or wrongful death claims. (ECF No. 36-1, PageID.304 ¶ 43; ECF No. 39-1,
PageID.382 ¶ 43.) He also noted it was “a final order and the period in which an
appeal must be filed shall commence upon the entry hereof.” (Id., PageID.306 ¶
47; id., PageID.384 ¶ 47.)
Defendant Wellpath suggests that Plaintiff failed to timely object or opt out .
. . .” (ECF No. 39, PageID.327.) The Court directed Plaintiff to file a response on
or before August 18, 2025. (ECF No. 40.) In a timely fashion, Plaintiff mailed
two very brief filings. The first, dated July 21, 2025, states, in total:
Keenan Wilhite come[s] to the Court asking the Court to dismiss
Defendant Wellpath’s motion to get dismissed from this civil suit.
Based on the facts the Defendant shouldn’t be able to be dismissed. I
ask the Court to rule in my favor and keep Defendant Wellpath in this
litigation matter[.] I would greatly appreciate it[.]
(ECF No. 43.) The second, dated August 14, 2025, states, in total:
Keenan Bailey Wilhite come[s] to the honorable courts of the Eastern
District of Michigan . . . to ask the Court to deny the defendant’s
motion to dismiss [ECF No. 39] in this litigation matter that presides
in this Court. You will see [ECF No. 39] is helpful in this matter for
the Court to come to a[n] honest and fair resolution. So with that
being said I hope and ask the courts to deny the motion for dismissal
of [ECF No. 39], and rule in my favor[.] Thank you. I would also
state the Defendant shouldn’t be dismissed because they still fail[ed]
to [do] what was right[.]
(ECF No. 44.) Neither of these responses aids Plaintiff’s cause, because these
Case 2:24-cv-11815-LVP-APP ECF No. 47, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/23/25 Page 8 of 11

9
filings do nothing to address – in a substantive manner – Defendant Wellpath’s
argument that “[t]he confirmation order bars Plaintiff’s claims.” (ECF No. 39,
PageID.327-328.) Importantly, Plaintiff’s responses do not assert that he
submitted an “Opt Out Form” as mentioned in the confirmation order; nor do
Plaintiff’s filings contend that his claims (or debts) against Wellpath are covered
by an exception.
Defendant Wellpath having put forth a reasonable argument that it is entitled
to dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against it based on the bankruptcy discharge and
confirmation order, and Plaintiff having failed to respond substantively to this
challenge, the Court should grant Defendant Wellpath’s motion to dismiss (ECF
No. 39).
E. 	Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court should GRANT IN PART and
DENY IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to proceed with lawsuit (ECF No. 32), lift the
stay as to individual Wellpath Defendants Martino, Joseph, and Farris (see ECF
No. 31), and GRANT Wellpath L.L.C.’s motion to dismiss based on bankruptcy
discharge and confirmation order (ECF No. 39), without prejudice to his seeking
any appropriate relief in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the S.D. Tex. or in the
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. If and when the Court accepts and adopts
this recommendation, the Undersigned will issue an appropriate scheduling order
Case 2:24-cv-11815-LVP-APP ECF No. 47, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/23/25 Page 9 of 11

10
as to the remaining Defendants.
III. 	PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and
Recommendation but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service,
as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Rule
72.1(d). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right
of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 144 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir. 1991). Filing objections that raise some
issues but fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all the objections a
party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of
Teachers, Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to Local Rule
72.1(d)(2), any objections must be served on this Magistrate Judge.
Any objections must be labeled as “Objection No. 1,” and “Objection No. 2,”
etc. Any objection must recite precisely the provision of this Report and
Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than 14 days after service of an
objection, the opposing party may file a concise response proportionate to the
objections in length and complexity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. LR
72.1(d). The response must specifically address each issue raised in the objections,
in the same order, and labeled as “Response to Objection No. 1,” “Response to
Case 2:24-cv-11815-LVP-APP ECF No. 47, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/23/25 Page 10 of 11

11
Objection No. 2,” etc. If the Court determines that any objections are without
merit, it may rule without awaiting the response.
Dated: October 23, 2025
Anthony P. Patti
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:24-cv-11815-LVP-APP ECF No. 47, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/23/25 Page 11 of 11