VALENTINE v. NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO
ORDER ADOPTING 32 Memorandum and Recommendations GRANTING 24 MOTION for Summary Judgment .(Signed by Judge Gray H Miller) Parties notified.(rkonieczny, 4)
United States District Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Southern District of Texas
February 14, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
BERTIS E. VALENTINE,
NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO, L.P.,
CIVIL ACTION H-15-1801
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?