The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
CHARLES STANTON )
SULLIVAN, JR., as personal )
representative for the estate of )
Ruth S. Sullivan, deceased, )
) CASE NO. 3:22-CV-702-RAH
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
PRATTVILLE HEALTH AND )
REHABILITATION, LLC, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
On February 16, 2024, the Magistrate Judge recommended that several
dispositive motions (Docs. 28, 30, 31, 33, 35, 39, 40, 53, 57, 60, 78, 83, 97, 106) be
denied, without prejudice to any party to raise the arguments therein, if appropriate,
in addressing the merits of the Second Amended Complaint. The Defendants filed
Objections (Docs. 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, and 149) to the Report
and Recommendation (Doc. 138).
When a party objects to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation,
the district court must review the disputed portions de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The district court “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition;
receive further evidence; or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). De novo review requires that the district court
independently consider factual issues based on the record. Jeffrey S. ex rel. Ernest
S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990). See also United States
v. Gopie, 347 F. App'x 495, 499 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009). However, objections to the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation must be sufficiently specific in
order to warrant de novo review. See Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 783-
85 (11th Cir. 2006). Otherwise, a Report and Recommendation is reviewed for clear
error. Id.
In a motion filed on April 12, 2023, Sullivan acknowledged that he has a
brother. (Doc. 91 at 1.) The Defendants, therefore, object to a finding by the
Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff Charles Stanton Sullivan, Jr., (“Sullivan”) is the sole
beneficiary of the Estate and seek to reserve the right to challenge whether he may
prosecute an action for wrongful death without counsel. This Court recognizes that
the Alabama Wrongful Death Statute provides that damages recovered must be
distributed according to the Statute of Distributions. Ala. Code § 6-5-410(c). Thus,
any proceeds from a wrongful-death action are for the benefit of statutory
beneficiaries, Kirksey v. Johnson, 166 So. 3d 633, 645 (Ala. 2014), including a
brother, and are not part a decedent’s Estate.
Although the Defendants object to a finding that Sullivan is the sole
beneficiary, the Magistrate Judge did not make this specific finding in her
Recommendation. Rather, the Magistrate Judge summarized the caselaw regarding
when a pro se plaintiff may sometimes represent an estate if he is the sole beneficiary
and reminded Defendants that, although in a March 3, 2023, Order (Doc. 37 at 4),
she previously found that the Court did not at that time need to invoke its inherent
powers to ensure the decedent’s estate is represented by a licensed attorney, the
“finding was without prejudice to any party to bring up the issue ‘at an appropriate
time, particularly in the event that the Eleventh Circuit issues an opinion in Iriele, or
in the event that any party wishes to bring other controlling authority to the court’s
attention concerning the issue.’” (Doc. 138 at 7.) In the Recommendation, she also
noted that, since the issuance of her March 3, 2023 Order, the Eleventh Circuit had
issued its opinion in Iriele [v. Griffin, 65 F.4th 1280 (11th Cir. 2023)].1 The
Magistrate Judge’s summary of the caselaw and the docket history does not amount
to a finding that Sullivan is the sole beneficiary.
Given the Court’s decision to grant Sullivan one additional opportunity to
amend, the Defendants may present their arguments related to this issue in a motion
addressing the merits of the Second Amended Complaint. And, to the extent the
Defendants seek to reserve the right to challenge whether he may prosecute an action
for wrongful death without counsel, there is nothing to prevent them from doing so.
1After the issuance of the March 3, 2023 Order (Doc. 37), Sullivan acknowledged in his April 12,
2023 motion (Doc. 91) that he has a brother.
Upon an independent review of the record, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, and the Objections, it is
ORDERED that the Objections (Docs. 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148,
149) are OVERRULED, Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (Doc. 138) is
ADOPTED, and that the following motions be DENIED AS MOOT, without
prejudice to any party to raise the arguments therein, if appropriate, in addressing
the merits of the Second Amended Complaint:
1. the Motion to Dismiss filed by Parkwood Health Care Facility, LLC, and
Prattville Health and Rehabilitation, LLC, for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted (Doc. 28);
2. the Motion to Dismiss filed by Parkwood Health Care Facility, LLC, and
Prattville Health and Rehabilitation, LLC, for lack of jurisdiction (Doc. 28);
3. the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Defendant
Amedisys Home Health of Alabama, LLC (Doc. 30);
4. the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Defendant Amedisys
Home Health of Alabama, LLC (Doc. 30);
5. the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Defendants
EAMC-Lanier, East Alabama Health Care Authority d/b/a East Alabama
Medical Center, and East Alabama Medical Center (Doc. 31);
6. the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Defendants EAMC-
Lanier, East Alabama Health Care Authority d/b/a East Alabama Medical
Center, and East Alabama Medical Center (Doc. 31);
7. the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Defendant Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama (Doc. 33);
8. the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon which Relief can
be Granted filed by Defendant Keith Fuller (Doc. 35);
9. the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed by
Defendant Keith Fuller (Doc. 35);
10. the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon which Relief can
be Granted filed by Defendant Mitchell Gavin (Doc. 39);
11. the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed by
Defendant Mitchell Gavin (Doc. 39);
12. the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon which Relief can
be Granted filed by Defendant Charles Hall (Doc. 40);
13. the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed by
Defendant Charles Hall (Doc. 40);
14. the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon which Relief can
be Granted filed by Defendant Maximus (Doc. 53);
15. the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed by
Defendant Maximus (Doc. 53);
16. the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for Failure to
State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted filed by Defendant UAB
Board (Doc. 57);
17. the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed by
Defendant UAB Board (Doc. 57)
18. the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon which Relief can
be Granted filed by Defendant Gregory Shields, M.D. (Doc. 60);
19. the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed by
Defendant Shields (Doc. 60);
20. the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon which Relief can
be Granted filed by Defendant Probate Judge Talmadge East (Doc. 78);
21. the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed by
Defendant Probate Judge Talmadge East (Doc. 78);
22. the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon which Relief can
be Granted filed the Russell Medical Defendants (Doc. 83);
23. the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed by the
Russell Medical Defendants (Doc. 83);
24. the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon which Relief can
be Granted filed by Defendant HHS (Doc. 97);
25. the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed by
Defendant HHS (Doc. 97); and
26. Plaintiff Sullivan’s Motion to Deny Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 106).
DONE, on this the 5th day of March 2024.
R. AUSTIN Ge JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE