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

(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,

, at *2 (N.D. W. Va. Nov. 10, 2020) (quoting Dietz v. Bouldin,

(2016)); see also Brown v. Wellpath, No. 3:24-CV-480-FDW-

SCR,

(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

(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,

(4th Cir. 2005); United States v. Benton,

(4th Cir. 2008). Moreover, failure to file timely objections will preclude the parties from raising such objections on appeal.

“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,

(4th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Midgette,

(4th Cir. 2007)). IT ISSO RECOMMENDED. Signed: February 24, 2025

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