Armstrong v. Marathon Petroleum Company LP

Filing 64

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 61 Memorandum and Recommendations. The Plaintiffs Objections to Magistrate Judges Memorandum andRecommendation are OVERRULED; 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Marathons Objections to Plaintiffs Evidence Opposing Summary Judgment is DENIED; This case is DISMISSED; and all other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.(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
MARTIN ARMSTRONG
Plaintiff.
VS.
MARATHON PETROLEUM
COMPANY, LP
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

June 13, 2018
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16–CV–00115

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Martin Armstrong’s Objection to the
Memorandum and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and
Memorandume [sic] in Support (“Objections”). On March 8, 2018, this case was referred
to Judge Andrew M. Edison pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On May 1, 2018, Judge
Edison filed a Memorandum and Recommendation recommending that the Defendant
Marathon Petroleum Company, LP’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Marathon’s
Motion for Summary Judgment”) be GRANTED and Defendant Marathon Petroleum
Company, LP’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Evidence Opposing Summary Judgment
(“Marathon’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Evidence Opposing Summary Judgment”) be
DENIED.
On May 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Objections. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(c), this Court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of

the [magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to
which objection [has been] made.” After conducting this de novo review, the Court may
“accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3).
The Court has carefully considered the Objections; the Memorandum and
Recommendation; the pleadings and summary judgment record; and the briefing and
arguments of the parties. The Court ACCEPTS Judge Edison’s Memorandum and
Recommendation and ADOPTS it as the opinion of the Court.

It is therefore

ORDERED that:
(1)

The Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and
Recommendation are OVERRULED;

(2)

Marathon’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED;

(3)

Marathon’s Objections to Plaintiff’s Evidence Opposing Summary
Judgment is DENIED;

(4)

This case is DISMISSED; and

(5)

All other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

SIGNED at Galveston, Texas, this 13th day of June, 2018.
___________________________________
George C. Hanks Jr.
United States District Judge

2