Altantawi v. Bouchard et al

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 2:22-cv-11906-MAG-APP ECF No. 69, PageID .< pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 1 of 10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
MUHAMMAD ALTANTAWI,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:22-cv-11906
V.
District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti
MICHAEL J. BOUCHARD, et al.,
Defendants.
/
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT DEFENDANT WELLPATH'S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGE (ECF NO. 67)
I. RECOMMENDATION:
The Court should GRANT Defendant's motion to dismiss without prejudice. (ECF No. 67.) As this would resolve the claims against the last remaining Defendant, if the Court denies Plaintiff's pending motion for relief from the Court's order adopting my prior report and recommendation (R&R) (ECF No. 65), the Court should then close the case.
II. REPORT
A. Background
Muhammad Altantawi, while incarcerated within the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), filed this case on August 16, 2022. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff's complaint arises from his alleged requests for medical and dietary
AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO

2
accommodations during the time he was held as a pretrial detainee in Oakland
County Jail. (ECF No. 38, PageID.265-66.) Plaintiff claims that Defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to provide him with
a diet consisting of foods free from soy and gluten. (ECF No. 38, PageID.267.)
Plaintiff brought suit on August 16, 2022 and Judge Goldsmith subsequently
referred this case to me “for all pretrial proceedings, including a hearing and
determination of all non−dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)
and/or a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 36.) On September 25, 2023 – following this
Court’s rulings on two motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 23, 25, 31, 35) – Plaintiff
filed an amended complaint, which is the operative pleading . (ECF No. 38.)
The Amended Complaint asserts claims against Wellpath as the entity
contracted by Oakland County to oversee and provided all medical and healthcare
services; Vicki Warren, the “Health Services Administrator” of the jail; Shane
Gibson, an employee of Wellpath; Jo Ann Mitchell, the “Medical Director” of the
jail; and “Unknown Health Care Staff.” (ECF No. 38, PageID.261-262.)
Plaintiff’s lengthy and hand-written complaint is often difficult to discern, but he
appears to be asserting claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his First,
Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He asserts that Defendants
violated and injured his physical and mental health by failing to provide medical
Case 2:22-cv-11906-MAG-APP ECF No. 69, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 2 of 10

3
care for his weight loss and dietary complications, chronic back complications, and
the cold temperatures persistent throughout Plaintiff’s incarceration. (ECF NO. 38,
PageID.263-64.) Plaintiff alleges a policy and custom of rejecting or refusing to
provide medical care “as often as possible.” (ECF No. 38, PageID.264.) Plaintiff
further contends that Defendants threatened him with “frivolous ‘suicide watch’
placement” and threatened to deny or reject all future medical requests. (ECF No.
38, PageID.264.) Finally, he alleges Defendants violated his rights under the U.S.
Constitution and also the Health Insurance and Portability Act by failing to provide
him with copy of his medical grievances, kites, and correspondence. (Id.)
On November 11, 2024, Wellpath Holdings, Inc. filed a Chapter 11
voluntary petition for bankruptcy, and an amended interim order enforcing the
automatic stay was entered on November 12, 2024. (See In re Wellpath Holdings,
Inc., et al., Case No. 24-90533-ARP (Bankr. S.D. Texas) (ECF No. 53-2).) The
bankruptcy court’s order provides that lawsuits “in which a Debtor is named as one
of the defendants . . . [,]” are “stayed in their entirety, including the plaintiffs’
claims against the Non-Debtor Defendants, on an interim basis pursuant to section
362 of the Bankruptcy Code.” (ECF No. 53-2 ¶ 2.)
On November 18, 2024, the Wellpath filed a suggestion of bankruptcy and
notice of stay. (ECF No. 53.) The case was administratively stayed as to
Defendant Wellpath on February 6, 2025. (ECF N.59.) The case proceeded
Case 2:22-cv-11906-MAG-APP ECF No. 69, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 3 of 10

4
against the remaining Defendants, and I issued a report and recommendation
(“R&R”) to grant summary judgment to those Defendants on February 6, 2025.
(ECF No. 60.) Judge Goldsmith adopted my R&R on February 25, 2025. (ECF
No. 61.) Plaintiff then filed a motion for relief from that order, which remains
pending before Judge Goldsmith. (ECF No. 65.)
The Wellpath bankruptcy has now concluded, and Wellpath has filed a
“Motion to Dismiss Based on Bankruptcy Discharge and Confirmation Order.”
(ECF No. 67.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to the motion by July 7,
2025. (ECF No. 68.) To date, no response has been filed, which means that
Defendant’s motion is unopposed. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(c)(1) (“A respondent
opposing a motion must file a response, including a brief and supporting
documents then available.”).
B. Discussion
Under 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(1)(A), a bankruptcy court’s confirmation of
Chapter 11 plan discharges the debtor from any debt that arose before the date of
confirmation.
In its motion, Wellpath asserts that the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the Southern District of Texas entered a final order of confirmation and that the
confirmation order “provides for a discharge, release, and injunction of all claims
arising prior to the effective date of the plan.” (ECF No. 67, PageID.845.)
Case 2:22-cv-11906-MAG-APP ECF No. 69, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 4 of 10

5
Wellpath contends 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. at PageID.845.) Wellpath asserts that the bankruptcy
court “approved a comprehensive resolution of all claims” and found that “the
provisions of 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. at PageID.852 (emphasis in original)
(quoting ECF No. 67-1, p.27)1.) Wellpath further details that the bankruptcy court
found that:
each of the injunction, exculpation, release, indemnification, discharge,
settlement, and compromise provisions set forth in the Plan [ ] are (i) the
product of extensive good faith and arm's-length negotiations, (ii) fair,
equitable, reasonable, and appropriate under the circumstances, (iii) confers
a material benefit on, and is in the best interests of, the Debtors, their
Estates, and their creditors, (iv) essential, integral, and nonseverable
components of the Plan, Consummation, and resolution of the Chapter 11
Cases, (v) appropriately and narrowly tailored, (vi) supported by good and
valuable consideration (including the Released Parties' contributions to
facilitate the resolution of the Chapter 11 Cases and implementation of the
Plan), (vii) granted after due notice and opportunity for hearing, (viii)
consistent with the Bankruptcy Code and applicable law [ ], (ix) intended to
promote finality and prevent parties from circumventing or attempting to
circumvent the Plan, (x) supported by the Debtors and their key
stakeholders, including the Ad Hoc Group, (xi) constitute good faith
compromises and settlements of the matters covered thereby, (xii) with
1 Because of the manner in which Wellpath filed its motion, the Court cannot
discern the PageID numbers of Wellpath’s exhibit, and will thus refer to the
internal pagination.
Case 2:22-cv-11906-MAG-APP ECF No. 69, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 5 of 10

6
respect to the injunction provisions, necessary to preserve and enforce the
Plan's discharge, release, and exculpation provisions, and (xiii) are the result
of a fair and valid exercise of the Debtors' business judgment.
(Id. at PageID.852-53 (quoting ECF No. 67-1, p.14).)
Wellpath sets forth the bankruptcy court’s findings that:
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.
(Id. at PageID.854 (quoting ECF No. 67-1, p.15).)
Wellpath intimates that Plaintiff did not timely object or opt out of the Plan
and that “Plaintiff’s failure to timely object or opt out does not preserve his
claims.” (Id. at PageID.854-855.) Citing Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bailey, 557 U.S.
137, 152 (2009) and In re Chattanooga Wholesale Antiques, Inc., 930 F.2d 458,
463 (6 th 1991), Wellpath asserts that “Federal courts—including those in the Sixth
Circuit—routinely enforce bankruptcy confirmation orders as final judgments
Case 2:22-cv-11906-MAG-APP ECF No. 69, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 6 of 10

7
entitled to full preclusive effect.” (Id. at PageID.855) Indeed, if Plaintiff missed
the deadline to challenge or opt out of the proposed bankruptcy plan, he cannot
challenge it in this Court. Thomas v. Corizon Health, Inc., Case No. 25-1275,
2025 WL 2171021, at *1 (7th Cir. July 31, 2025) (recognizing that once a
bankruptcy court’s deadline for claimants to act has passed, it is “too late” for
claimants—even those representing themselves—to challenge or opt out of the
reorganization plan). Among other findings, the Bankruptcy Court specifically
found that the notice of the Confirmation Hearing, as well as the opportunity for
any interested party to object to the final approval of the Plan, was “adequate and
appropriate under the circumstances” and that “no further notice [was] required.”
(ECF No. 67-1, p. 4.) “A confirmation order is a final judgment in the case, and
neither it nor the plan that it confirms may be attacked other than by filing a timely
appeal.” In re K.D. Co., Inc., 254 B.R. 480, 490 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2000) (citing
Stoll v. Gottlieb, 305 U.S. 165, 170–72 (1938).
Here, in the face of Defendant’s well-founded motion, Plaintiff has provided
no opposition whatsoever. Thus, this Court should join the majority of other courts
who have considered the issue, and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Wellpath
without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to seek any appropriate relief in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. See Allen v. Wellpath
LLC, No. CV 1:24-1536, 2025 WL 2415750, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 20, 2025)
Case 2:22-cv-11906-MAG-APP ECF No. 69, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 7 of 10

8
(dismissing claims against Wellpath because “the reorganization plan approved by
the bankruptcy court clearly requires the claims against Wellpath to be
dismissed”); McGinnis v. Hill, No. CV 24-73, 2025 WL 2468476, at *1 (W.D. Pa.
Aug. 27, 2025) (adopting report and recommendation and finding that
“continuation of this action against Wellpath is foreclosed by the bankruptcy
discharge”); Smalls v. Charleston Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., No. 0:24-CV-4614-RMG,
2025 WL 2550523, at *1 (D.S.C. Sept. 4, 2025) (adopting report and
recommendation to grant Wellpath, LLC's unopposed motion to dismiss based on
the Bankruptcy discharge).
C. Conclusion
The Court should GRANT Defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice
to his seeking any appropriate relief in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of Texas or in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. (ECF
No. 67.)
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 &
Case 2:22-cv-11906-MAG-APP ECF No. 69, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 8 of 10

9
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
Objection No. 2,” etc. If the Court determines that any objections are without
merit, it may rule without awaiting the response.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 20, 2025
Anthony P. Patti
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:22-cv-11906-MAG-APP ECF No. 69, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/20/25 Page 9 of 10

Case 2:22-cv-11906-MAG-APP ECF No. 69, PagelD.<pagelD> Filed 10/20/25 Page 10 of 10

10