Beo v. Cenac Marine Services LLC et al

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 19 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Maintenance and Cure Claim, 27 Report and Recommendations. Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in PART AND DENIED, in part, as stated in the Report and Recommendation,(Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(ltrevino, 3)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
§
§
Plaintiff,
§
VS.
§
§
CENAC MARINE SERVICES LLC, et al, §
§
Defendants.
§

November 04, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk

IRVING BEO,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-CV-125

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND OVERRULING OBEJCTIONS
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge John Froeschner, and the Objections filed by Defendant.
Irving Beo filed this Jones Act lawsuit on May 27, 2015. Beo alleges he was a
deckhand on the M/V Fritz Cenac, and he was injured due to the negligence of Defendants
and unseaworthiness of the vessel while the vessel was operating in navigable waters. (Dkt.
1).
Defendants Cenac Marine and CTCO Benefits have filed a motion for partial
summary judgment, asking the Court to dismiss Beo’s maintenance and cure claim “for his
back and his neck,” and to find that Beo has reached maximum medical improvement on his
right leg and that he abandoned medical treatment soon after his alleged injury. (Dkt. 19).
The Court referred the motion to Judge Froeschner on September 12, 2016. (Dkt. 26).
Judge Froeschner issued his Report and Recommendation on October 4, 2016. (Dkt. 27).
Judge Froeschner’s Report and Recommendation found that Defendant’s motion for partial
summary judgment should be granted as to Beo’s claim for maintenance and cure on his
1/2

back injury, but that the motion should be denied as to Beo’s claim for his neck injury, as
well for the Defendant’s contention that Beo had reached maximum medical improvement
and had abandoned medical treatment.
Defendants have filed Objections to certain parts of the Report and Recommendation.
(Dkt. 28). This Court must conduct a de novo review of any of the Magistrate Judge's
conclusions to which a party has specifically objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A
judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”).
Defendant’s Objections appear to be based upon their belief that the particular
phrasing Magistrate Judge Froeschner used in the Report and Recommendation will
constitute the law of the case going forward, and they worry that they may be prejudiced at
trial if they do not object now to Judge Froeschner’s particular choice of words and
recommendation that the motion for summary judgment be denied in part and granted in part.
The Court will remain mindful of the distinct evidentiary burdens and rules that differentiate
trial from summary judgment practice.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Objections are OVERRULED, and the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge on Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment is ADOPTED.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in

part, and DENIED, in part, as stated in the Report and Recommendation.
SIGNED at Galveston, Texas, this 4th day of November, 2016.
___________________________________
George C. Hanks Jr.
United States District Judge

2/2