Miller v. Wells Fargo NA

Filing 91

Order Accepting 85 Findings and Recommendations re: 81 Motion to Strike filed by Wells Fargo Bank NA, 65 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Wells Fargo Bank NA. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 3/24/2020) (ndt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
THORNTON MILLER,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant.

Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-03472-X-BT

Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
After reviewing de novo all relevant matters of record in this case, including
the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation [Doc. No. 85] of the United States
Magistrate Judge and plaintiff Thornton Miller’s Objection [Doc. No. 88], in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion
that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are
accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court.
The Magistrate Judge found and concluded that defendant Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. (Wells Fargo) is entitled to summary judgment on Miller’s Title VII and Section
1981 discrimination claims and on Miller’s Title VII retaliation claims. For Miller’s
Title VII and Section 1981 claims, the Magistrate Judge found that Miller cited no
evidence in the record to support his allegation that similarly situated individuals
outside of his protected class were treated differently than he was treated. For
Miller’s Title VII retaliation claims, the Magistrate Judge found that Miller did not
1

assert any protected activity to form the basis of a Title VII retaliation claim. And,
even if he had done so, Miller also failed to point to evidence that established a causal
connection between such protected activity and an alleged adverse employment
action.
Miller responded to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendation with an objection. But, in it, Miller did not offer a specific objection
to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s order. Miller mostly restated his arguments
in opposition to Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment. In his objection, Miller
did correct some of the citations to his exhibits. But Miller still failed to point to
specific evidence in the record to support his allegations in any way that would
warrant a finding in his favor.
Therefore, the Court GRANTS Wells Fargo’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[Doc. No. 65]. By separate judgment, the Court will DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE
Miller’s claims against Wells Fargo.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of March 2020.

___________________________________
BRANTLEY STARR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2