Johnson v. Omni Optical Lab

Filing 57

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that the Court grant Defendant Omni Optical Lab's Motion for Summary Judgment # 53 and dismiss this case with prejudice. Signed by Judge Marcia A. Crone on 12/6/12. (mrp, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FELICIA A. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
OMNI OPTICAL LAB,
Defendant.

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10-CV-522

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Earl Hines, United States Magistrate
Judge, for all pretrial matters pursuant to General Order 05-07.

Due to Judge Hines’s

retirement, the case was transferred to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate
Judge, for pretrial management. The Court has received and considered the report (Doc. No.
54) of the magistrate judge, who recommends that the Court grant Defendant Omni Optical Lab’s
(“Omni Optical”) “Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. No. 53) and dismiss this case with
prejudice. On November 16, 2012, the Plaintiff, Felicia A. Johnson (“Johnson”), filed an
objection to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. (Doc. No. 56.) Omni Optical
has not filed a response to Johnson’s objection.
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)(l); 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)). In Johnson’s objection, she does not mention the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation nor identify any specific issue of law or fact,
among those set forth in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, with which she
disagrees. Johnson’s objection generally requests relief from the Court for the wrongs alleged in
her complaint. Therefore, Johnson’s objection fails to invoke the Court’s authority to review the
report and recommendation. Nonetheless, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the
record, and the Court concludes that the magistrate judge’s analysis is correct.
Johnson’s objection (Doc. No. 56) is OVERRULED; the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation (Doc. No. 54) is ADOPTED; Omni Optical’s “Motion for Summary Judgment”
(Doc. No. 53) is GRANTED; and this lawsuit is DISMISSED with prejudice. Final judgment

.
will be entered separately.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 7th day of September, 2004.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 6th day of December, 2012.

________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 of 2