Filing 33

ORDER ADOPTING 32 Memorandum and Recommendations GRANTING 24 MOTION for Summary Judgment .(Signed by Judge Gray H Miller) Parties notified.(rkonieczny, 4)

Download PDF
United States District Court UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION Southern District of Texas ENTERED February 14, 2017 David J. Bradley, Clerk BERTIS E. VALENTINE, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO, L.P., Defendant. § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION H-15-1801 ORDER Pending before the court is a memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) in which the Magistrate Judge recommends that the court grant in part and deny in party defendant National Oilwell Varco, L.P.’s (“National”) motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 24). Dkt. 32. Neither National nor plaintiff Bertis E. Valentine objected to the M&R. After reviewing the motion, related documents, and the applicable law, the court is of the opinion that there is no clear error and that the M&R should be adopted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). Accordingly, the M&R (Dkt. 32) is ADOPTED IN FULL. The court, consistent with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, GRANTS summary judgment in favor of National on Valentine’s Americans with Disabilities Act claim and his Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims, which are the only claims asserted in his complaint (see Dkt. 1). Valentine’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. National also sought summary judgment, alternatively, on its laches defense and because Valentine could not show evidence of damages. See Dkt. 32. National’s motion for summary judgment on these alternative grounds is DENIED. A final judgment will be issued concurrently with this order. Signed at Houston, Texas on February 14, 2017. ___________________________________ Gray H. Miller 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?