Singh, Ph.D. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. et al

Filing 114

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 109 Order,, Report and Recommendations,, Terminate Motions,, Motions terminated: 86 Opposed MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution filed by Richard W. Miller, 92 MOTION to Dismiss for Plaintiff's Failure to Cooperate in Discovery & Failure to Comply with the Court's Order filed by Eva Marie Moseley, Wal-Mart Stores Texas LLC, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Alan Martindale.. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (cc3)

Case 1:17-cv-01120-RP-ML Document 114 Filed 02/23/21 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
RAVINDRA SINGH, PH.D,
Plaintiff,
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

1:17-cv-1120-RP

ORDER
Before the Court is the report and recommendation and order of United States Magistrate
Judge Mark Lane concerning Defendant Richard W. Miller and the City of Austin’s (the “City
Defendants”) Motion to Sanction and Dismiss Case for Plaintiff Ravindra Singh’s (“Singh”) Failure
to Cooperate in Discovery and Comply with Court’s Order, (Dkt. 86), Defendant Wal-Mart Stores
Texas LLC, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Alan Martindale, and Eva Marie Moseley’s (the “Wal-Mart
Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss for Plaintiff Ravindra Singh’s Failure to Cooperate in Discovery
and Failure to Comply with the Court’s Order, (Dkt. 92), and Singh’s Second Motion to Compel
Disclosure, (Dkt. 95). (R. & R., Dkt. 109). In his report and recommendation, Judge Lane
recommends that the City Defendants’ Motion to Sanction and Dismiss Case for Plaintiff Ravindra
Singh’s Failure to Cooperate in Discovery and Comply with Court’s Order, (Dkt. 86), be denied and
the Wal-Mart Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Plaintiff Ravindra Singh’s Failure to Cooperate in
Discovery and Failure to Comply with the Court’s Order, (Dkt. 92), be denied. (Id. at 16). In his
order, Judge Lane granted in part and denied in part Singh’s Second Motion to Compel Disclosure,
(Dkt. 95), issued warnings to Singh, and issued orders to all parties related to discovery in this case.
(Id.). Singh timely filed objections to the report and recommendation and appealed Judge Lane’s
orders. (Objs., Dkt. 112).
1

Case 1:17-cv-01120-RP-ML Document 114 Filed 02/23/21 Page 2 of 3

A party may serve and file specific, written objections to a magistrate judge’s findings and
recommendations within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and
recommendation and, in doing so, secure de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). Because Singh timely objected to the report and recommendation, the Court reviews
the report and recommendation de novo. Having done so, the Court overrules Singh’s objections and
adopts the report and recommendation as its own order.
Regarding Judge Lane’s orders, a district judge may reconsider any pretrial matter
determined by a magistrate judge where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). District courts apply a “clearly erroneous”
standard when reviewing a magistrate judge’s ruling under the referral authority of that statute.
Castillo v. Frank, 70 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 1995). The clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard
of review is “highly deferential” and requires the court to affirm the decision of the magistrate judge
unless, based on the entire evidence, the court reaches “a definite and firm conviction that a mistake
has been committed.” Gomez v. Ford Motor Co., No. 5:15-CV-866-DAE, 2017 WL 5201797, at *2
(W.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2017) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395
(1948)). The clearly erroneous standard “does not entitle the court to reverse or reconsider the order
simply because it would or could decide the matter differently.” Id. (citing Guzman v. Hacienda Records
& Recording Studio, Inc., 808 F.3d 1031, 1036 (5th Cir. 2015)).
Because Singh timely appealed from portions of Judge Lane’s order, the Court reviews those
portions of Judge Lane’s order for clear error or for conclusions that are contrary to law. Having
done so, the Court denies Singh’s appeal. Upon its own review, this Court finds that Judge Lane’s
orders and warning were not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the report and recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Mark Lane, (R. & R., Dkt. 109), is ADOPTED. The City Defendants’ Motion to
2

Case 1:17-cv-01120-RP-ML Document 114 Filed 02/23/21 Page 3 of 3

Sanction and Dismiss Case for Plaintiff Ravindra Singh’s Failure to Cooperate in Discovery and
Comply with Court’s Order, (Dkt. 86), is DENIED and the Wal-Mart Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss for Plaintiff Ravindra Singh’s Failure to Cooperate in Discovery and Failure to Comply with
the Court’s Order, (Dkt. 92), is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court DENIES Singh’s appeal, (Dkt. 112), and
AFFIRMS Judge Lane’s order granting in part and denying in part Singh’s Second Motion to
Compel Disclosure, (Order, Dkt. 109, at 16), Judge Lane’s warnings to Singh, (Id. at 13–14), and
Judge Lane’s discovery-related orders, (Id. at 14–16).
SIGNED on February 23, 2021.

ROBERT PITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3