Lee v. Southwest Airlines Company

Filing 120

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONOF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE re: 114 Memorandum and Recommendation; granting 100 MOTION for Sanctions.(Signed by Judge Drew B Tipton) Parties notified. (kmp4)

Download PDF
United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION TAMBRIA LEE, Plaintiff, VS. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES COMPANY, Defendant. § § § § § § § § § July 03, 2024 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk Civil Case No. 4:21-CV-01901 ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Pending before the Court is the June 6, 2024 Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Peter Bray. (Dkt. No. 114). Judge Bray made findings and conclusions and recommended that Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss as Sanction, (Dkt. No. 100), be granted. (Dkt. No. 114). The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). On June 20, 20224, Plaintiff filed three objections. (Dkt. No. 118). First, Plaintiff objected to Judge Bray’s finding of a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 118 at 3–5). Second, Plaintiff objected to Judge Bray’s finding that the delay was caused by Plaintiff rather than her attorneys. (Dkt. No. 118 at 6). Third, Plaintiff objected to Judge Bray’s finding that lesser sanctions would be futile. (Dkt. No. 118 at 7). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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 de novo those portions of the M&R to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations for plain error. Finding no error, the Court accepts the M&R and adopts it as the opinion of the Court. It is therefore ordered that: (1) Judge Bray’s M&R (Dkt. No. 114) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety as the holding of the Court; (2) Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss as Sanction, (Dkt. No. 100), is GRANTED; and (3) This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is SO ORDERED. Signed on July 2, 2024. ___________________________________ DREW B. TIPTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?