Bay Area Healthcare Group, LTD v. California Physicians' Service

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 2:25-cv-00021 Document30 _~ Filed 01/30/26 in TXSD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Page 1 of 3

United States District Court
Southem District of Texas

ENTERED
January 30, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
BAY AREA HEALTHCARE GROUP, LTD,

Plaintiff,

V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00021

§

§

§

§

§
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS’ SERVICE, §
§

Defendant. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock’s Memorandum and
Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 27). The M&R recommends the following:

e Grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss Count I for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;

e Deny without prejudice Defendant’s motion to dismiss Count II and III for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction;

e Grant Plaintiff leave to amend its complaint within 21 days after the Court adopts
the M&R;

e Should Plaintiff fail to file an amended complaint within the 21-day period, the
Court should dismiss this case without prejudice; and

e Should Plaintiff file an amended complaint within the 21-day period, the Court
should allow Defendant to re-file any Rule 12 motions for dismissal.

Id. at 21. Plaintiff filed written objections, (D.E. 28), to which Defendant responded, (D.E. 29).
When a party objects to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, the
district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A
party must point out with particularity any alleged errors in the magistrate judge’s analysis. Pelko
v. Perales, No. 23-CV-00339, 2024 WL 1972896, at *1 (S.D. Tex. May 3, 2024) (Ramos, J.).
Objections that merely re-urge arguments contained in the original briefing are not proper and will
not be considered. Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290, 293 n.7 (Sth Cir. 1993). Moreover, “[f]rivolous,

conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Battle v. U.S. Parole

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 2:25-cv-00021 Document 30 Filed 01/30/26 in TXSD Page 2of3

Comm’n, 842 F.2d 419, 421 (Sth Cir. 1987) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

As to any portion for which no objection is filed, a district court reviews for clearly
erroneous factual findings and conclusions of law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221
(Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam). Furthermore, having previously authorized district courts to
expeditiously adopt a magistrate’s recommendation, McGill v. Goff, 17 F.3d 729, 731-32 (Sth Cir.
1994) (permitting a district court to adopt a magistrate’s recommendation one day after receiving
it and before objections were filed), the Fifth Circuit has also authorized district courts to adopt a
magistrate’s recommendation without providing detailed analysis. See Habets v. Waste Mgmt.,
Inc., 363 F.3d 378, 382 (Sth Cir. 2004) (affirming a district court’s two-sentence order adopting a
magistrate’s recommendation for summary judgment).!

After considering Plaintiff's objections and reviewing the M&R de novo, the Court
OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections, (D.E. 28), and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of
the M&R. (D.E. 27). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to amend its complaint
within 21 days of the date of this order and DENIES as moot Defendant’s motion to dismiss,
(D.E. 9). Failure to timely amend will result in the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims without prejudice.
Should Plaintiff timely file an amended complaint, Defendant is permitted to re-file any Rule 12
motions for dismissal.

SO ORDERED.

' Specifically, the Fifth Circuit stated that “because the magistrate here made only legal findings on a
summary judgment motion, the district court was permitted to issue an abbreviated order adopting [the
recommendation].” Habets, 363 F.3d at 382. Although the M&R is at the motion to dismiss stage and not
summary judgment, the Court finds that the principles animating the Fifth Circuit’s decision apply with
equal force here: (1) “the record was available to the district court a full 20 days before the court issued its
order’; (2) “the magistrate here made no involved findings of fact . . .”; (3) “the magistrate here provided a
thorough analysis to support its recommendation”; and (4) “the district court had a complete record of the
magistrate’s proceedings.” See id. (citations omitted).

Case 2:25-cv-00021 Document 30 Filed 01/30/26 in TXSD Page 3of3

UM

DAVID.S. MORALES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas
January$ 649026