IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION

ENCOMPASS HEALTH § REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF § MIDLAND ODESSA, LLC, § § § v. § MO:22-CV-00237-DC § XAVIER BECERRA, SECRETARY § OF THE UNITED STATES § DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND § HUMAN SERVICES; § §

ORDER Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation1 from United States Magistrate Judge Ronald C. Griffin related to Xavier Beccera, Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services’ Motion to Dismiss.2 In his report and recommendation, Judge Griffin recommends that the Court deny the Secretary’s motion. The Secretary timely objected,3 and Encompass Health timely responded.4 A party may serve and file specific, written objections to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation and, in doing so, secure de novo review by the district court.5 When no

1 EC No. 18. 2 ECF No. 16. 3 ECF No. 19 4 ECF No. 20. 5

(b)(1)(C). objections are timely filed, a district court can review the magistrate’s report and recommendation for clear error.° The Secretary objects under the belief that the Court can adjudicate this case without conducting fact-intensive analysis, contrary to the Magistrate Judge’s concluding contention that it cannot. Through this narrow objection, the Secretary re-urges the arguments posed in its motion to dismiss. The Court need not conduct de novo review if objections to a report and recommendation are frivolous, general, or conclusory.’ Review for clear error reveals that Magistrate Judge Griffin’s report and recommendation is correct and should be adopted. It is therefore ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. The Secretary’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 8th day of March, 2024.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6 See Ped. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (‘When no timely objection is filed, the [district] court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 7 See Battle v. U.S. Parole Com’n,

(5th Cir. 1987).