govinfo:USCOURTS-txed-1_24-cv-00049-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
BEAUMONT DIVISION 
 
JOHN DOE, M.D., PH.D., 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
AND HUMAN SERVICES, 
 
Defendant. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-CV-49-MJT-CLS 
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND 
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules of Court for the Assignment of Duties to 
United States Magistrate Judges, the Court referred this proceeding to the Honorable Christine L. 
Stetson, United States M agistrate Judge, to conduct all pretrial proceedings, to enter findings of 
fact and recommend disposition on case -dispositive matters, and to determine non -dispositive 
matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); E.D. TEX. LOC. R. CV-72. 
On May 19, 2026, Judge Stetson issued a Report and Recommendation advising the Court 
to grant the parties’ Joint Motion [Dkt. 35] as to remand but not as to entering final judgment. See 
[Dkt. 36 at 2]. Rather than dismiss the case, Judge Stetson recommended that the Court retain 
supervisory jurisdiction until the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reconsidered 
its challenged decision on remand, requiring the parties to submit joint status reports until then. 
Primarily, Judge Stetson was concer ned that dismissal may raise preclusion issues that could 
prevent Plaintiff Dr. Doe from requesting judicial review of HHS’s reconsideration. [Id.] Dr. Doe 
objected to Judge Stetson’s Report and Recommendation on June 1, 2026. [Dkt. 37]. He argues 
that the Court should follow what he claims to be the “norm” —remand “without retaining 
oversight.” [Id. at 2] (quoting Baystate Med. Ctr. v. Leavitt, 587 F.Supp.2d 37, 41 (D.D.C. 2008). PageID #: 
<pageID>
2 
 
 The Court therefore conducts a de novo review of whether it should retain oversight of the 
HHS proceedings on remand and require periodic status reports. At bottom, nothing dictates the 
Court’s ruling in these circumstances. As the case that Dr. Doe relies on states, the decision 
regarding supervisory jurisdiction is wholly within “the discretion” of the Court. Baystate Med. 
Ctr., 587 F.Supp.2d at 41. Indeed, “ federal courts regularly retain jurisdiction until a federal 
agency has complied with its legal obligations[] and have the authority to compel regular progress 
reports in the meantime.” Cobell v. Norton, 240 F.3d 1081, 1109 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Moreover, the 
Court should not “abdicate its responsibility to ensure that its instructions are followed.” Id. 
 Dr. Doe points out that supervisory jurisdiction is “ typically reserved for cases alleging 
unreasonable delay of agency action or failure to comply with a statutory deadline, or for cases 
involving a history of agency noncompliance with court orders or resistance to fulfillment of legal 
duties.” [Dkt. 37 at 3] (quoting Baystate Med. Ctr., 587 F.Supp.2d at 41). Here, he asserts that 
“none” of those factors are present. [ Id.] But there is a long history between Dr. Doe and HHS, 
see, e.g., Doe v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 165 F.4th 903, 905 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2026), 
and Dr. Doe remains unsatisfied with the agency. Although he posits that the “risks of preclusion” 
alluded to in Judge Stetson’s Report and Recommendation are overstated because the “new agency 
action” will be subject to challenge “in judicial proceedings separate from this one ,”1 [Dkt. 37 at 
2, 3], a question remains regarding his other claims in this action , which the Fifth Circuit did not 
mention. See Doe, 165 F.4th at 906–07 (Haynes, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 
 
1 Nothing requires Dr. Doe to bring a new action if he desires to challenge HHS’s post -remand actions. The “must” 
language cited by Dr. Doe [Dkt. 37 at 3] comes from Heartland Regional Medical Center v. Leavitt, 415 F.3d 24 (D.C. 
Cir. 2005), but that court found that a separate action was required to raise a subsequent APA challenge because the 
case arose under a motion to enforce a judgment but the judgment did not mention the new agency action being 
challenged and thus no enforcement of the judgment could attack HHS’s actions as desired by the challengers, see id. 
at 25, 29–31. Cf. Matson Navigation Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp. , 480 F.Supp.3d 282, 285 –86 (D.D.C. 2020) 
(noting that the “general rule” is for remand orders to be non -final and not accompany final judgment but departing 
from that rule because, for one, the court had “not issued any instructions to [the agency] regarding the remand”). PageID #: 
<pageID>
3 
 
Ultimately, the Court is not convinced that Dr. Doe is free from all risks of preclusion and 
declines to enter final judgment and close this matter. As to his asserted hardships, [Dkt. 37 at 5], 
although Dr. Doe has relocated his residence, he remains in the Eastern District of Texas. Further, 
filing joint status reports is not a burden.2 Finally, two separate district courts have heard and ruled 
on the di sputes between Dr. Doe and HHS, a third seems unnec essary. As such, Dr. Doe’s 
Objections [Dkt. 37] are OVERRULED and the Report and Recommendation [Dkt. 36] is 
ADOPTED. It is hereby 
ORDERED that HHS’s January 30, 2024 decision regarding Dr. Doe’s December 18, 
2023 request for reconsideration is VACATED and that Dr. Doe’s December 18, 2023 request for 
reconsideration is REMANDED to HHS for reconsideration in accordance with the Fifth Circuit’s 
ruling in No. 24-40778 [Dkt. 33-1 at 3–4], which mandates that HHS follow the procedure found 
in its National Practitioner Data Bank Guidebook (2018). It is 
FURTHER ORDERED that this case shall be STAYED until the parties provide notice 
that HHS has completed reconsideration. Until completion, the parties shall file a joint status 
report on the progress of HHS’s reconsideration on November 30 and May 31 of each year. The 
case will remain stayed until further order from the court. 
 
2 To the point that the reports impose “added expense” because of “the cost of counsel,” the interim reports need only 
be one sentence informing the court whether HHS has completed reconsideration or not. 
____________________________ 
Michael J. Truncale
United States District Judge
SIGNED this 16th day of June, 2026. PageID #: 
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight