Walker et al v. Beaumont Independent School District et al

Filing 297

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Parties Chris Kibby, Steven Lisle, David Gonzales and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 479 terminated. Signed by Judge Marcia A. Crone on 3/7/17. (mrp, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CALVIN GARY WALKER,
WALKER’S ELECTRIC, WALKERS
ELECTRIC, and JESSIE HAYNES,
Plaintiffs,
versus
BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT, AARON
COVINGTON, LEROY SALEME, et al.,
Defendants.

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-379

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the court are Plaintiffs Calvin Walker (“Walker”), Walker’s Electric,
Walkers Electric, and Jessie Haynes’s (“Haynes”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Objections to
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations on the IBEW 479 Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss (#295). The court referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin
for consideration and recommended disposition of case-dispositive pretrial motions (#55). On
February 9, 2017, Judge Giblin issued a Report and Recommendation (#293), wherein he
recommended that the court grant Defendant International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Local Union 479 (“IBEW 479”), David Gonzales (“Gonzales”), Steven Lisle (“Lisle”), and Chris
Kibby’s (“Kibby”) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) (#254) and Defendant Duwayne Hermann, Jr.’s (“Hermann”)
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(c) (#256). The court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ objections and concludes that they should be
overruled. Therefore, the court adopts the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge.
The factual and procedural history of this case has been laid out in numerous prior orders.
Additionally, the court notes that Judge Giblin’s recommended dismissal was based on the same
grounds granted by this court in its ruling on the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers’
(“IBEW”) motion to dismiss, and the claims asserted against IBEW 479 are essentially identical
to those asserted against IBEW. Docs. Nos. 240, 248.
I.

Discussion
A party who files timely, written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation is entitled to a de novo determination of those findings or recommendations to
which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(c); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2)–(3).
“Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings [to which they object].
Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Nettles
v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); accord Bank of
America, N.A. v. Ingram, No. 1:12-cv-55, 2012 WL 2524274, at *1 (E.D. Tex. June 29, 2012);
Flynn v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. (Tex.), 605 F. Supp. 2d 811, 813 (W.D. Tex. 2009);
Savage v. Barnhart, 372 F. Supp. 2d 922, 924 n.1 (S.D. Tex. 2005). Here, the court has
undertaken a de novo review of the report and recommendation and concludes that Plaintiffs’
objections are without merit.
In the instant objections, Plaintiffs reassert similar objections to those they made to Judge
Giblin’s report and recommendation (#240), which this court has already addressed and overruled.

2

Doc. No. 248. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ instant objections are overruled as well for the same
reasons discussed in the court’s previous order.
II.

Conclusion and Order
For the foregoing reasons, the court ORDERS that Judge Giblin’s Report and

Recommendation (#293) is ADOPTED in its entirety.

Plaintiffs’ Objections (#295) are

OVERRULED. The court further ORDERS that the IBEW 479, Gonzales, Lisle, and Kibby’s
Motion to Dismiss (#254) and Hermann’s Motion to Dismiss (#256) are GRANTED, as set forth
in the report and recommendation.
Therefore, because this order dispenses with all of Plaintiffs’ claims against the abovelisted defendants, they are further ordered to be DISMISSED as parties to this case.

Signed this date
Mar 7, 2017

3