# Hucks v. Wellpath, LLC

> District Court, W.D. North Carolina · February 24, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10829063

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** February 24, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10829063

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:23-CV-797-RJC-DCK
SAVANNAH HUCKS, )
)
Plaintiff, ) MEMORANDUM AND
) RECOMMENDATION
v. )
)
WELLPATH, LLC, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Mecklenburg County’s Motion To
Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint” (Document No. 47), “Defendant Crystal Ballard
And Wellpath, LLC’s Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint” (Document No.
51), and “Defendants Garry McFadden, Larisha Brown, and Unique Phillips’s Motion To Dismiss
Amended Complaint” (Document No. 54). These motions have been referred to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having
carefully considered the arguments, the record, and applicable authority, the undersigned will
respectfully recommend that the motions be administratively denied without prejudice.
I. DISCUSSION
On November 15, 2024, after the filing of the instant Motions To Dismiss, Defendant
Wellpath LLC (“Wellpath”) filed a “Notice Of Petition Of Bankruptcy And Notice Of Stay”
(Document No. 66). Defendant Wellpath informed the Court that this proceeding is stayed
pending its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of Texas. (Document No. 66).
Although this case is currently stayed, three Motions To Dismiss remain pending.
(Document Nos. 47, 51, 54). “[D]istrict courts have the inherent authority to manage their
dockets…with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases .” Moss v. City Hosp.,
Inc., No. 3:19-CV-187, 2020 WL 12584435, at *2 (N.D. W. Va. Nov. 10, 2020) (quoting Dietz v.
Bouldin, 136 S.Ct. 1885, 1892 (2016)); see also Brown v. Wellpath, No. 3:24-CV-480-FDW-

SCR, 2025 WL 240950 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 16, 2025) (administratively denying motions to dismiss
without prejudice to refile after the bankruptcy stay is lifted).
Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the pending motions to
dismiss (Document Nos. 47, 51, 54) be administratively denied without prejudice and that
Defendants be permitted to refile motions to dismiss, if appropriate, after the stay is lifted.
II. RECOMMENDATION
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the undersigned respectfully recommends that
“Mecklenburg County’s Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint” (Document No.
47), “Defendant Crystal Ballard And Wellpath, LLC’s Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint” (Document No. 51), and “Defendants Garry McFadden, Larisha Brown, and
Unique Phillips’s Motion To Dismiss Amended Complaint” (Document No. 54) be
administratively DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
III. TIME FOR OBJECTIONS
The parties are hereby advised that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and Rule 72 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, written objections to the proposed findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and recommendation contained herein may be filed within fourteen (14) days
of service of same. Responses to objections may be filed within fourteen (14) days after service
of the objections. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file objections to this Memorandum and
Recommendation with the District Court constitutes a waiver of the right to de novo review by the
District Court. Diamond v. Colonial Life, 416 F.3d 310, 315-16 (4th Cir. 2005); United States v.
Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 428 (4th Cir. 2008). Moreover, failure to file timely objections will preclude
the parties from raising such objections on appeal. Id. “In order ‘to preserve for appeal an issue
in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue
with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the
objection.’” Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Midgette,
478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007)).
IT ISSO RECOMMENDED.
Signed: February 24, 2025

b) cnt
David C. Keesler “ey
United States Magistrate Judge get

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10829063. Public record. Not legal advice.