Lee v. Wellpath Corporation et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
BRANDI LEE, 	Case No. 	2:24-cv-00039
Plaintiff, 	Hon. 	Hala Y. Jarbou
Chief U.S. District Judge
v.
WELLPATH CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. 	Introduction
This Report and Recommendation (R. & R.) addresses Defendant Wellpath,
LLC’s (Wellpath) motion to dismiss based upon the May 1, 2025, United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas final confirmation order
discharging and releasing claims against Wellpath. 	(ECF No. 35.) 	Wellpath
argues that the claims asserted by Plaintiff should be dismissed with prejudice based
upon the Bankruptcy Court’s final order.
Plaintiff has not responded.
Plaintiff Brandi Lee filed an amended complaint on March 19, 2024, alleging
Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims as well as state law claims
for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendants,
including Wellpath. 	(ECF No. 2.) 	These claims arise from her incarceration at the
Chippewa County Detention Facility. 	Lee says that she was denied proper medical
care and treatment while she was confined in the Chippewa County Detention
Case 2:24-cv-00039-HYJ-MV ECF No. 42, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/10/25 Page 1
of 4

2
Facility, resulting in the death of her twin fetuses at approximately 10 weeks
gestation.
As Lee set forth in her complaint, Defendant Wellpath contracted with the
County of Chippewa to provide medical care for inmates at the County Jail facility.
(Id., PageID.2.) 	Lee also sues Wellpath employees Defendants Dr. Hayes, and
Registered 	Nurses 	Lightfoot, 	Ricketts, 	and 	Thompson. 	Defendants 	Hayes,
Lightfoot, Ricketts, and Thompson have not moved for dismissal based upon the
bankruptcy confirmation order.
II. 	Analysis
Plaintiff brings a Monell claim against Defendant Wellpath. 	Monnell v. Dep’t.
of Soc. Servs. Of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). 	Although, Plaintiff has
not identified a policy, procedure, or custom that violated her rights, she alleges that
“the policy and custom of Wellpath resulted in the continual denial of adequate
medical care for Brandi Lee’s serious medical condition.” 	(ECF No. 2, PageID.79.)
That there was “an absence of any proper custom and policy and/or the policy in
existence resulted in zero proper medical care for Brandi Lee’s serious medical
condition.” 	(Id., PageID.80.)
On May 1, 2025, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District
of Texas entered an Order Confirming the First Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of
Reorganization of Wellpath Holdings, Inc. and Certain Debtors Affiliates. (ECF No.
77-1.) 	The order discharges Wellpath’s debt that arose before May 1, 2025.
The order provided in part that:
Case 2:24-cv-00039-HYJ-MV ECF No. 42, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/10/25 Page 2
of 4

3
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 . . . .
(ECF No. 35-1, PageID.418-419.)
Wellpath argues that because Plaintiff failed to opt out or object, her claims
against Wellpath must be dismissed under the terms of the Bankruptcy Court
confirmation order.1 	See Minges v. County of Berrien, No. 1:23-cv-1308 (W.D. Mich.
Nov. 5, 2025) (ECF No. 91), report and recommendation adopted, 2025 U.S. Lexis
254825 (W.D. Mich., Dec. 9, 2025) (ECF No. 92) (dismissing Wellpath based upon the
Southern District of Texas Bankruptcy Court order).
Plaintiff has not asserted that she opted out or objected to the Bankruptcy
Court confirmation order. 	Nor has Plaintiff presented any argument to the Court
rebutting Defendant Wellpath’s motion to dismiss.
1 	Other District Courts from this Circuit that have decided this issue have
reached various conclusions. 	See Huffman v. Williams, 2025 WL 2522965 (W.D.
Ken. Sept. 2, 2025) (dismissing Wellpath after taking judicial notice of the Wellpath
bankruptcy confirmation order); Poronto v. Hoist, 2025 WL 2700601 (E.D. Mich. Sept.
22, 2025) (recognizing that the Wellpath bankruptcy discharge renders the collection
of a debt owed by Wellpath as unenforceable, but allowing the case to proceed against
Wellpath as a nominal party solely for the determination of liability); Carr v.
Wilkerson, 2025 WL 2656043 (Sept. 16, 2025) (noting that if the Plaintiff had failed
to opt out, the claims would be released and dismissed by the Court); Gregory v.
M.D.O.C., 2025 WL 2466029 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 26, 2025) (denying Wellpath’s motion
to dismiss without prejudice based upon bankruptcy confirmation order because too
many questions were left unanswered in the motion).
Case 2:24-cv-00039-HYJ-MV ECF No. 42, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/10/25 Page 3
of 4

4
III. 	Recommendation
Accordingly, it is respectfully recommended that the Court grant Defendant
Wellpath’s motion to dismiss based upon the May 1, 2025, United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of Texas final confirmation order discharging and
releasing claims against Wellpath.
NOTICE TO PARTIES: 	Objections to this Report and Recommendation must
be served on opposing parties and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen
(14) days of receipt of this Report and Recommendation. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). 	Failure to file timely objections
constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal. 	United States v. Walters, 638
F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 	See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Dated: 	December 10, 2025 	/s/ `ttÜàxÇ ixÜÅttà
MAARTEN VERMAAT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-00039-HYJ-MV ECF No. 42, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/10/25 Page 4
of 4