Allamon v. Acuity Specialty Products, Inc. et al
Filing
110
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 107 Report and Recommendations, overruling objections 108 and denying 101 Motion for New Trial filed by Barbara Allamon. Signed by Judge Thad Heartfield on 11/5/12. (dlc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
'
'
v.
'
'
ACUITY SPECIALTY PRODUCTS, INC., '
ZEP INC., ACUITY SPECIALTY
'
PRODUCTS GROUP, INC., ROSS
'
HARDING, GREG MILLER, RICHARD '
MANNING, DAVE BAUER, AND OLGA '
MARTINEZ
'
BARBARA ALLAMON
NO. 1:10-CV-294
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On March 30, 2012, the Court granted the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment,
dismissing the Plaintiff, Barbara Allamon’s claims with prejudice (Doc. No. 93). Final Judgment
was entered on July 2, 2012 (Doc. No. 99). Thereafter, Allamon filed her “Motion for New Trial
or, alternatively, Motion for Additional and/or Amended Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law”
(Doc. No. 101). On August 27, 2012, the Court entered an order referring this pending motion to
the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, for entry of proposed findings and
recommended disposition (Doc. No. 106). The Court has received and considered the report
(Doc. No. 107) of the magistrate judge, who recommends that the Court deny Allamon’s motion.
Allamon filed an Objection (Doc. No. 108) to the report and recommendation, and the Defendants
filed a Response to Allamon’s Objection (Doc. No. 109).
A party who files timely written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation is entitled to a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which the
party specifically objects.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3).
“Frivolous,
conclusive[,] or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Battle v. United
States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677
F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc)). Allamon briefly restates the arguments made in her
motion and makes the conclusive, general objection that the magistrate judge’s finding is “simply
inaccurate.” (Doc. No. 108, at 1.) Therefore, Allamon’s objection fails to invoke the court’s
authority to review the report and recommendation.
Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, the Court has undertaken its own de novo
review of the record and concludes that the magistrate judge’s analysis is correct. Allamon’s
objection is without merit. It is, therefore,
ORDERED that Allamon’s objection (Doc. No. 108) is OVERRULED, the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation (Doc. No. 107) is ADOPTED, and Allamon’s “Motion for
New Trial or, alternatively, Motion for Additional and/or Amended Findings of Fact &
Conclusions of Law” (Doc. No. 101) is DENIED.
SIGNED this the 5 day of November, 2012.
____________________________
Thad Heartfield
United States District Judge
2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?