Donahue v. Wellpath, LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KELLY B. DONAHUE,
Plaintiff,
v.
WELLPATH LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
No. 4:24-CV-00513
(Chief Judge Brann)
ORDER
J ANUARY 22, 2026
In early 2024, plaintiff Kelly B. Donahue filed the instant Section 1983 civil
rights lawsuit in this Court. 1 His claims sound in Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs. The operative pleading in this action is
Donahue’s Third Amended Complaint—his fourth pleading attempt.2
In addition to suing Wellpath, LLC (Wellpath), Donahue sues multiple
medical providers at SCI Frackville, including Nicole Boguslaw, Megan Delpais,
Donald O’Brien, William Knappenberger, Kacie Harris, Crystal Ewaskiwicz, and
Cynthia Gronski. 3 Of these providers, Boguslaw, Delpais, O’Brien, and Harris are
current or former employees of Wellpath. 4
1 	See generally Doc. 1.
2 	See generally Doc. 36.
3 	See id. at 2. Donahue also sues SCI Frackville Superintendent Kathy Brittain, C.H.C.A. Beth
Herb, and grievance coordinator Beth Lazusky.
4 	See Doc. 64 at 6.
Case 4:24-cv-00513-MWB-MP Document 70 Filed 01/22/26 Page 1 of 7

2
As more fully set forth in prior docket entries, Wellpath filed for Chapter 11
Bankruptcy in November 2024. 5 Pursuant to the automatic stay entered in the
bankruptcy proceedings,6 the Court stayed and administratively closed the instant
case. 7 Following the bankruptcy court lifting the automatic stay, the Court
reopened this case and directed the parties to refile any motions that were
previously terminated due to the stay and administrative closure. 8
As part of that motion practice, defendants Wellpath, Boguslaw, Delpais,
O’Brien, and Harris sought dismissal of all claims against them pursuant to the
Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings and confirmed Chapter 11 Plan.9 More
specifically, Wellpath asserted that all pre-petition claims against it (the Debtor)
were discharged in bankruptcy.10 And Boguslaw, Delpais, O’Brien, and Harris
maintained that Donahue had failed to affirmatively opt out of the Plan’s Third-
Party Release, thus enjoining Donahue from pursuing any pre-petition claims
against them in this Section 1983 lawsuit.11
In response, Donahue alleged in a September 8, 2025 filing that he had not
received notice of the Third-Party Release and opt-out provision or the official opt-
5 	See generally Docs. 41, 46; In re: Wellpath Holdings, Inc., No. 4:24-bk-90533 (Bankr. S.D.
Tex.).
6 	See In re: Wellpath Holdings, Inc., No. 4:24-bk-90533, Doc. 1480 ¶¶ 1-3 (Bankr. S.D. Tex.
Feb. 19, 2025); 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).
7 	See Doc. 46.
8 	See Doc. 48.
9 	See Doc. 62.
10 	See id. ¶¶ 8-11.
11 	See id. ¶¶ 12-22.
Case 4:24-cv-00513-MWB-MP Document 70 Filed 01/22/26 Page 2 of 7

3
out form to file in the bankruptcy proceedings. 12 Notably, it does not appear that
Donahue took any action to protect his rights in the bankruptcy court before or
after submission of his September 8, 2025 filing.
Wellpath, Boguslaw, Delpais, O’Brien, and Harris responded to Donahue’s
September 8 filing by providing extensive documentation and sworn evidence of
the notice duly provided to Donahue regarding the Chapter 11 Plan and its Third-
Party Release and opt-out requirement. 13 First, Defendants noted that it was
undisputed that Donahue had notice of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings,
including the suggestion of bankruptcy,14 a copy of the Chapter 11 petition, 15 and a
copy of the automatic stay order, 16 which were served on Donahue and the other
defendants in this case. 17
Second, Defendants provided substantial documentary proof that Donahue
was served on March 24, 2025, via next-business-day mail with the following
bankruptcy-related documents: the Disclosure Statement, Solicitation and Voting
Procedures, Debtor Cover Letter, Committee Letter, Confirmation Hearing Notice,
and Class 6 Ballot and Return Envelope.18 Additionally, on April 11, 2025,
12 	See Doc. 65.
13 	See generally Doc. 67.
14 	Doc. 41.
15 	Doc. 41-1
16 	Doc. 41-2.
17 	See Doc. 41-3.
18 	See Doc. 67-1 at 5 ¶ 4; Doc. 67-4 at 93.
Case 4:24-cv-00513-MWB-MP Document 70 Filed 01/22/26 Page 3 of 7

4
Donahue was served with the same documents via First Class mail through his
Department of Corrections Smart Communications mailing address.19 Included in
these documents is express notice of the Third-Party Release and notice of the
requirement to opt out of the Third-Party Release to avoid relinquishment of pre-
petition claims against current or former Wellpath employees.20 Accordingly,
Defendants have provided extensive evidence that Donahue was properly served
(on multiple occasions) with notice of the Third-Party Release and the opt-out
requirement.21
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Donahue did not receive these
notices in March and April 2025, Donahue has provided no allegation or evidence
that he has taken any steps to protect his rights in the bankruptcy court against any
non-Debtor defendant. As Defendants noted in their November 19, 2025
responsive filing, Donahue “may have remedies still available to him in the
Bankruptcy Court,” including a motion to challenge lack of service, a motion to
quash service, or a due process argument. 22
19 	See Doc. 67-5 at 4 ¶ 5 & n.3 (noting that “[m]aterials sent to incarcerated parties were via
hardcopy, without staples, and multiple static materials were assembled into one packet with
cover sheets separating each document”); Doc. 67-8 at 47.
20 	See Doc. 67-1 at 3, 33; Doc. 67-3 at 25; Doc. 67-4 at 45-61.
21 	This evidence directly contradicts Donahue’s assertion, (see Doc. 65), that Defendants violated
this Court’s February 24, 2025 Order (Doc. 46) requiring counsel for Wellpath to provide
Donahue with copies of bankruptcy documents that may affect his civil rights case.
22 	See Doc. 67 at 6.
Case 4:24-cv-00513-MWB-MP Document 70 Filed 01/22/26 Page 4 of 7

5
This Court has no authority to override the bankruptcy court proceedings or
Third-Party Release requirements and ramifications. The Chapter 11 Plan is clear
that any pre-petition claims or causes of action against current or former Wellpath
employees are “conclusively, absolutely, unconditionally, irrevocably, and
forever” released and discharged unless the holder of a claim “affirmatively elected
to opt out of the Plan’s Third-Party Release.” 23 Holders of such claims who did
not affirmatively opt out of the Plan’s Third-Party Release are expressly enjoined
from bringing or pursuing pre-petition claims against those current or former
employees. 24 Without any evidence that Donahue has opted out of Wellpath’s
Chapter 11 Plan’s Third-Party Release or otherwise attempted to protect his rights
in the bankruptcy proceedings after learning of the opt-out requirement, this Court
cannot entertain Donahue’s pre-petition claims against current or former
employees of Wellpath and they must be dismissed.
Additionally, as noted above, Wellpath filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in
November 2024. On May 1, 2025 (effective May 9, 2025), the bankruptcy court
confirmed the “First Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of
[Wellpath].” 25 As part of that Chapter 11 Plan Confirmation, any claims or causes
23 	See In re: Wellpath Holdings, Inc., No. 4:24-bk-90533, Doc. 2596 at 132-33 (Bankr. S.D. Tex.
May 1, 2025); id., Doc. 2907 at 3 ¶¶ 5-6 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. June 4, 2025).
24 	See id., Doc. 2907 at 3 ¶ 6 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. June 4, 2025).
25 	See id., Doc. 2596 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. May 1, 2025); id., Doc. 2680 at 1 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. May
9, 2025).
Case 4:24-cv-00513-MWB-MP Document 70 Filed 01/22/26 Page 5 of 7

6
of action against Wellpath (other than administrative claims properly and timely
pursued through the bankruptcy court) accruing before the November 11, 2024
bankruptcy petition date are discharged and released, and the holders of such
claims are permanently enjoined from seeking any “judgment, award, settlement,
claim, distribution, indemnification right, or any other payment amount resulting
from their lawsuit” against Wellpath.26 Donahue’s claims against Wellpath
regarding his medical treatment at SCI Frackville arose prior to the November 11,
2024 petition date, 27 and therefore he is permanently enjoined from pursuing
claims against Wellpath as part of this civil lawsuit. Any claim against Wellpath,
consequently, will be dismissed without prejudice to Donahue’s right to pursue
appropriate relief through the bankruptcy court.
AND NOW, upon consideration of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that:
1. 	Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 62) is GRANTED.
2. 	Any and all claims asserted against Third-Party Non-Debtor
defendants Nicole Boguslaw, Megan Delpais, Donald O’Brien, and
Kacie Harris in the above-captioned action are DISMISSED without
prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to pursue appropriate relief through the
bankruptcy court.
26 	See id., Doc. 2596 at 134 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. May 1, 2025); id., Doc. 2907 at 2 ¶¶ 3-4 (Bankr.
S.D. Tex. May 4, 2025); 11 U.S.C. § 524(a) (“A discharge in a case under this title . . . operates
as an injunction against the commencement or continuation of an action, the employment of
process, or an act, to collect, recover or offset any such debt as a personal liability of the debtor
. . . .”).
27 	See generally Doc. 36 (filed October 9, 2024).
Case 4:24-cv-00513-MWB-MP Document 70 Filed 01/22/26 Page 6 of 7

7
3. 	Any and all claims asserted against defendant Wellpath, LLC in the
above-captioned action are DISMISSED without prejudice to
Plaintiff’s right to pursue appropriate relief through the bankruptcy
court.
4. 	Wellpath’s and Boguslaw’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 51) is
DISMISSED as moot and without prejudice in light of paragraphs 2
and 3 above.
5. 	Defendant Harris’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 53) is DISMISSED as
moot and without prejudice in light of paragraph 2 above.
6. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate defendants Wellpath, LLC,
Nicole Boguslaw, Megan Delpais, Donald O’Brien, and Kacie Harris.
7. 	The Court will screen the remaining Section 1983 claims in
Donahue’s Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 36) as statutorily
required by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a) in due course. Should any claim or claims survive
Section 1915A(a) screening, the Court will then determine how
service should be effected on any remaining Defendant or Defendants.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
Chief United States District Judge
Case 4:24-cv-00513-MWB-MP Document 70 Filed 01/22/26 Page 7 of 7