Walker v. Webco Industries, Inc et al
ORDER overruling pltf's objections and adopting 33 Report and Recommendation. Ordered that defts' 31 Motion to Strike is granted to the extent that it seeks to strike pltf's 29 More Definite Statement and denied to the extent that it seeks to strike pltf's 30 Sur-Reply Brief. Ordered that defts' 23 Motion to Dismiss is granted, and pltf's claims are dismissed. This action is closed. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 6/4/13. (tkd, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FREDDIE L. WALKER, SR.,
WEBCO INDUSTRIES, INC. et al,
Civil Action No. 1:11-CV-521
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES
Plaintiff Freddie L. Walker, Sr. filed this case pro se against Defendants Webco Industries,
Inc., alleging several causes of action primarily based on the termination of employment with
Webco. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Keith Giblin for determination of
non-dispositive pretrial matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Judge Giblin entered a Report and Recommendation on April 29, 2013, recommending that
the court strike Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, but not his sur-reply brief, and grant
Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Doc. # 33. Plaintiff has filed objections. Doc. # 37.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the court has
conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, Plaintiff’s
objections, and the record as a whole, and concludes that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit.
Plaintiff’s objections are little more than a collection of quotations from the magistrate judge’s
opinion, interspersed with irrelevant case law citations. He makes the same arguments previously
considered and rejected by the magistrate judge, and fails to address the points raised in the report
and recommendation. Nowhere in his lengthy objections does Plaintiff point to facts that would
establish a viable cause of action.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Freddie L. Walker, Sr.’s objections [Doc. #
37] are OVERRULED. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc. # 33] is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Webco Industries, Inc. et al’s Motion to Strike
[Doc. # 31] is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks to strike Plaintiff’s January 16, 2013 More
Definite Statement [Doc. # 29], and DENIED to the extent it seeks to strike Plaintiff’s January 16,
2013 sur-reply brief [Doc. # 30].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 23] is GRANTED,
and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 4 day of June, 2013.
Ron Clark, United States District Judge
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?