United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT
& RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 142] AND DISMISSING CASE WITH
S. KLEEH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) by United States Magistrate Judge
Michael J. Aloi (“Judge Aloi”) [ECF No. 142]. For
the reasons stated below, the Court hereby
ADOPTS the R&R.
19, 2017, Plaintiff Ajai Sandhir (“Sandhir”)
filed a pro se complaint against Louis Little;
Sanjay Bharti, MD, PLLC; Sanjay Bharti; Jeremy Larew; and
Ginger Dearth (collectively, “the defendants”)
[ECF No. 1]. In the complaint, Sandhir alleges two counts of
tortious interference with a business relationship, one count
of aiding and abetting, and one count of civil conspiracy to
injury another in trade, business, or profession. He filed an
amended complaint on March 28, 2018, in which he
re-incorporated the paragraphs from the original complaint
and added a defamation claim [ECF No. 49].
case was transferred to the Northern District of West
Virginia on June 9, 2017 [ECF No. 4]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636 and this Court's local rules, the Court
referred the action to Judge Aloi for initial review [ECF No.
7]. The case was reassigned to United States District Judge
Thomas S. Kleeh from United States District Judge Irene M.
Keeley on December 1, 2018 [ECF No. 131].
January 23, 2019, Judge Aloi issued an R&R [ECF No. 142]
and made the following recommendations regarding a number of
• That this Court grant the pending motion to dismiss
filed by Defendants Sanjay Bharti, MD, PLLC, Sanjay Bharti,
and Jeremy Larew [ECF No. 63];
• that this Court grant the pending motion to dismiss
filed by Defendants Ginger Dearth and Louis Little [ECF No.
65]; • that this Court deny as moot Sandhir's motion
to strike the defendants' expert witness [ECF No. 127];
• that this Court deny as moot the objections by
Defendants Sanjay Bharti, MD, PLLC, Sanjay Bharti, and Jeremy
Larew to Sandhir's subpoena issued to Monongalia County
General Hospital [ECF No. 135]; and
• that this Court dismiss with prejudice and strike from
the docket the amended complaint [ECF No. 49].
pending before the Court, but filed after the R&R, are a
motion to compel filed by Sandhir [ECF No. 143], the Bharti
Defendants' objections to Sandhir's subpoena to West
Virginia Rehabilitation Hospital, Inc. [ECF No. 145], and a
non-party motion to quash Sandhir's subpoena [ECF No.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
reviewing a magistrate judge's R&R, the Court must
review de novo only the portions to which
an objection has been timely made. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C). Otherwise, “the Court may adopt, without
explanation, any of the magistrate judge's
recommendations to which the [parties do] not object.”
Dellarcirprete v. Gutierrez, 479 F.Supp.2d 600,
603-04 (N.D. W.Va. 2007) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718
F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983)). Courts will uphold portions
of a recommendation to which no objection has been made
unless they are clearly erroneous. See Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315
(4th Cir. 2005). Here, the R&R expressly stated that
parties had 14 days to object to it after receiving it [ECF
No. 142 at 28]. Sandhir received the R&R on January 28,
2019 [ECF No. 147]. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, the Court reviewed the R&R for clear error.