FOSTER v. WARD et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
JOHN M. FOSTER, 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	: 	Case No. 5:23-cv-143-TES-CHW
:
COMMISSIONER TIMOTHY C 	: 	Proceedings Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
WARD, et al., 	: 	Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge
:
Defendants. 	:
________________________________ 	:
ORDER
Following the filing of a suggestion of bankruptcy, this case was stayed as to Defendants
Taylor and Wellpath, LLC1 on December 11, 2024. (Docs. 107, 110). The bankruptcy court has
since lifted the automatic stay. (Docs. 139, 140, 149). Several motions concerning the status of
Defendants Wellpath and Taylor and how to proceed in this case are pending before the Court. For
the reasons explained below, Plaintiff’s motion for hearing (Doc. 145) is DENIED, Defendant’s
motion for reconsideration (Doc. 151) is GRANTED, and the case remains stayed as to Defendant
Wellpath. However, a hearing is required to address the remaining pending motions (Docs. 141,
148) and Defendant Taylor’s status in the case.
Procedural History
In this Section 1983 lawsuit, John Foster, a pro se inmate, sued several prison staff
members and medical providers at Washington State Prison (“WSP”). (Doc. 1). He later amended
and recast his complaint. (Docs. 8, 10). Following screening of Plaintiff’s operative recast
complaint (Doc 10), a deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Taylor for failing to treat
1 As more fully discussed herein, Wellpath, LLC was previously named Correct Care Solutions, LLC. See
(Doc. 61, p. 9, 17).
Case 5:23-cv-00143-TES-CHW Document 152 Filed 10/31/25 Page 1 of 7

2
Plaintiff’s blood pressure was allowed to move forward. (Id.) Another deliberate indifference claim
against Defendants Taylor, Ward, and Jackson was permitted to move forward for failing to provide
Plaintiff with a bottom bunk profile and then later failing to adhere to that profile. (Docs. 15, 21).
Plaintiff was also allowed to proceed on a retaliation claim against Defendants Ward and Jackson
for threatening Plaintiff because he filed grievances about the bottom bunk profile. (Id.) When the
screening recommendation was reviewed, the Court overruled the recommendation that Connect
Care/Wellpath be dismissed and allowed Plaintiff to proceed on his deliberate indifference claim
alleging that Connect Care/Wellpath had a policy or custom of failing to treat inmates. (Doc. 21,
p. 7-8). All other claims were dismissed. See (Docs. 15, 21).
Plaintiff has attempted to amend and supplement his complaint many times. (Docs. 50, 55,
62, 66, 69, 76, 81, 105). Plaintiff was permitted to add a deliberate indifference claim against
Defendant Cliett for refusing him access to treatment for a shingles infection at WSP and against
Wellpath concerning the lack of treatment he received for shingles once transferred to Dooly State
Prison (Doc. 61, 68), but his other attempts to amend were denied. See (Docs. 61, 68, 76, 88, 110).
Summary judgment in favor of Defendants Ward and Jackson has been entered (Docs. 115,
121). Defendant Cliett’s motion for summary judgment is pending before the Court. (Doc. 122).
Defendant Taylor has filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 141), and Defendant Wellpath argues that
the case should remain stayed based upon the bankruptcy court’s orders. See (Doc. 151).
Service History and Status of Defendants Taylor and Wellpath
Defendant Wellpath was formerly known as Correct Care, LLC, which is how the company
was listed when service paperwork was first issued following screening. (Docs. 54); see also (Doc.
61, p. 9). Waivers of service for Defendants Taylor and Correct Care were first issued on August
23, 2023, and September 26, 2023, respectively. (Docs. 16, 25). Both had to be assigned to the
Case 5:23-cv-00143-TES-CHW Document 152 Filed 10/31/25 Page 2 of 7

3
U.S. Marshals Service for personal service. (Docs. 33, 46-49). Defendant Taylor was personally
served on November 6, 2023. (Doc. 39). When a deputy U.S. Marshal learned that Correct Care
was now known as Wellpath and that Defendant Taylor could not accept service on Wellpath’s
behalf, he reached out to a Wellpath representative to learn a good address for purposes of service
on December 12, 2023. (Doc. 54, p. 2). A handwritten note reflects that an address for the Wellpath
contact was provided on January 9, 2024 (id.), but it is unknown how that information was used
in the service process.
Despite knowing that the Court was facilitating service on defendants, Plaintiff regularly
continued to follow-up regarding service. See (Docs. 45, 58). In response to one of those inquiries,
the Court recognized Wellpath as the correct entity for Plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. 61, p. 9). Using the
information provided on the Georgia Secretary of State’s website for Wellpath’s registered agent,
the Court directed the Clerk’s office to re-issue a request for waiver of service to Wellpath at that
address. (Id.) Wellpath was added as party on the docket on April 4, 2024, but for reasons unclear
from the docket, the waiver request was not issued until July 23, 2024, and was not mailed until
August 6, 2024. (Docs. 79, 83). When the waiver was returned unexecuted, the U.S. Marshals
Service was again assigned to personally serve Wellpath. (Docs. 92, 96, 102). The paperwork was
forwarded to the Marshals Service in the Northern District of Georgia for service. (Doc. 102).
Wellpath was personally served on November 1, 2024. (Doc. 108).2
2 Contrary to Wellpath’s belief that the claims against it have been pending only since April 2024 (see Doc.
151, p. 1-2, n. 2)), a least one claim against Connect Care/Wellpath has been pending since the first
screening recommendation was considered in September 2023. (Doc. 21). Despite being contacted by a
U.S. Deputy Marshal who was trying to effect service in December 2023, being represented by the same
law firm as Defendant Taylor who was served in November 2023, and knowing that waiver of service is
encouraged in federal cases, Wellpath took no steps to waive service and had to be personally served.
Although the procedural history in this case is complicated and tortured, (see (Doc. 150, p. 1-2, n. 2)),
Plaintiff, an indigent pro se inmate, bears no blame for any service delay.
Case 5:23-cv-00143-TES-CHW Document 152 Filed 10/31/25 Page 3 of 7

4
Because Defendant Taylor had not answered Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court directed the
Court to enter a default against him on September 16, 2024. (Doc. 88). Without addressing or
moving to set aside the default, Defendant Taylor answered Plaintiff’s complaint on October 14,
2024. (Doc. 100). Prior to resolving his default status, on November 19, 2024, Defendant Taylor
filed a suggestion of bankruptcy as to Wellpath’s pending bankruptcy. (Doc. 107). Pursuant to an
automatic stay order (Doc. 107-2), the case was stayed as to Defendants Taylor and Wellpath.
(Doc. 110). Counsel for Defendant Taylor, who also represents Wellpath, was ordered to provide
status reports to the Court until the say was lifted. (Id.)
When Defendant Taylor filed his May 2, 2025, status report, the automatic stay remained
in effect. (Doc. 129). Defendants Taylor and Wellpath filed an answer on May 21, 2025, without
commenting on the bankruptcy or explaining why Defendant Taylor was filing a second answer.
(Doc. 132). After the Court itself became aware of the confirmation plan and the bankruptcy case’s
status through other cases, on June 24, 2025, the Court ordered Defendants Taylor and Wellpath
to provide a status report by July 1, 2025. (Doc. 134). They failed to comply as directed, and the
Court again directed them to file a status report. (Doc. 138).
Defendants Wellpath and Taylor filed a status report and notice of discharge and injunction
on August 26, 2025. (Doc. 139, 140). On September 2, 2025, Defendant Taylor filed a motion to
dismiss because Plaintiff had not timely filed to opt-out of the third-party release. (Doc. 141). This
motion did not mention Wellpath. (Id.) The Court provided Plaintiff notice of the motion to dismiss
and lifted the bankruptcy stay, but stayed the case as to Defendant Taylor pending the outcome of
the motion to dismiss and granted Plaintiff’s request to extend discovery as to Wellpath. (Doc.
142). Plaintiff responded to Defendant Taylor’s motion to dismiss, argued that he had not received
timely notice of the opt-out procedures, and suggested defense counsel was to blame. (Doc. 143).
Case 5:23-cv-00143-TES-CHW Document 152 Filed 10/31/25 Page 4 of 7

5
Plaintiff thereafter moved in the bankruptcy court to opt-out, and that request was granted. (Doc.
148-3).
In addition to Defendant Taylor’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 141), now pending before the
Court are Plaintiff’s request for a hearing to hold defense counsel in contempt (Doc. 145), motion
for discovery extension (Doc. 148), and request for a declarative order. (Id.) Defendant Taylor and
Wellpath opposed Plaintiff’s request for hearing and have moved the Court to reconsider its
decision to lift the stay as to Wellpath. (Doc. 151). Wellpath also filed another answer (Doc. 150)
out of an abundance of caution (id., p. 1-2, n. 2), despite having previously answered the complaint.
See (Doc. 132).
Plaintiff’s Motion for Hearing (Doc. 145)
Plaintiff contends a hearing is necessary to address defense counsel’s “purposeful
misconduct” surrounding Plaintiff’s lack of notice about the bankruptcy court’s order and how
Plaintiff may proceed with his claims against Defendants Taylor and Wellpath. (Doc. 148). While
the case’s procedural history no doubt has frustrated Plaintiff, it does not provide a basis for
contempt or sanctions against Defendant Taylor and Wellpath’s counsel. There is no suggestion
that counsel in this case was required to notice Plaintiff about proceedings in the bankruptcy court.
Even assuming counsel in this case was responsible for notifying Plaintiff as he alleges, this Court
is not in a position to sanction counsel for actions and orders entered in another court. Moreover,
Plaintiff has now been permitted to opt out by the bankruptcy court. (Doc. 148-3). As for his claims
about Wellpath, as explained below, Plaintiff is not yet foreclosed from proceeding, despite
additional steps that must be taken. Accordingly, there is no basis to impose sanctions against
Defendant Taylor and Wellpath’s counsel. Plaintiff’s motion for hearing (Doc. 145) is DENIED.
Case 5:23-cv-00143-TES-CHW Document 152 Filed 10/31/25 Page 5 of 7

6
Defendant Taylor and Wellpath’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 151)
Defendants Taylor and Wellpath filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order
lifting the stay in this case and ordering that discovery may commence against Defendant Wellpath.
(Docs. 142, 151). Having reviewed the entire docket to piece together Defendant Taylor and
Wellpath’s procedural posture, it appears that Wellpath has correctly noted that Plaintiff’s claims
against it should remain stayed unless and until he complies with the requirements set forth in the
confirmation order and in the order regarding lift of stay motions. See (Doc. 139, ¶ 5). While the
automatic stay is no longer in effect, Plaintiff’s claims against Wellpath are subject to the Trust
Distribution Procedures (“TDPs”) instituted by the bankruptcy court, even if Plaintiff seeks to
proceed nominally against Wellpath. Id.; (Doc. 139-1). Although Plaintiff’s out-of-time request to
opt-out of the Third-Party Release regarding his claims against Defendant Taylor was granted,
nothing in the record shows that Plaintiff has complied with the bankruptcy court’s directives about
continuing his claims as to Wellpath. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 151) is
GRANTED. The case, and discovery, is stayed against Defendant Wellpath unless and until
Plaintiff demonstrates compliance with the Trust Distribution Procedures.3
Remaining Pending Motions (Docs. 141, 148)
Two motions thus remain for the Court’s consideration: Plaintiff’s motion for extension of
discovery (Doc. 148)4 and Defendant Taylor’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 141). Because the
bankruptcy court granted Plaintiff’s out-of-time request to opt-out (Doc. 148-3), Defendant
3 As indicated in Wellpath’s latest answer, a motion is pending before the bankruptcy court to further clarify
whether the bankruptcy discharge requires dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against Wellpath. (Doc. 150, p.
1, n. 1).
4 Plaintiff explains that he sent discovery requests to Defendants Taylor and Wellpath following the filing
of the May 12, 2025, answer. (Doc. 148). The Court does not fault Plaintiff, a pro se inmate, for believing
that the discovery period had begun, but at the time Plaintiff sent his discovery requests the case remained
stayed in this Court, and Defendants Taylor and Wellpath had no obligation to answer the discovery.
However, it appears that the discovery requests were received. See (Doc. 151).
Case 5:23-cv-00143-TES-CHW Document 152 Filed 10/31/25 Page 6 of 7

7
Taylor’s motion to dismiss is likely moot. Additionally, Defendant Taylor has never resolved the
default that was entered upon the docket on September 16, 2024. See Docket. Thus, prior to
resolving the motion to dismiss or lifting the discovery stay as to Defendant Taylor, a hearing is
necessary to address Defendant Taylor’s status in this case.
Accordingly, Defendant Taylor, his counsel, and Plaintiff are ORDERED to appear at
10:00 a.m. on Thursday, December 11, 2025, in Courtroom E of the William Augustus Bootle
Federal Courthouse, 475 Mulberry Street, Macon, Georgia Macon, Georgia. The Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to prepare an appropriate order for the production of Plaintiff John M. Foster, a state
prisoner, at this hearing.
SO ORDERED, this 31st day of October, 2025.
s/ Charles H. Weigle
Charles H. Weigle
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:23-cv-00143-TES-CHW Document 152 Filed 10/31/25 Page 7 of 7