Lowery v. Mills et al

Filing 123

ORDER ADOPTING 120 Report and Recommendations, and GRANTING 94 Opposed MOTION to Amend Complaint and Add Jay Hartzell as a Party. Signed by Judge David A. Ezra. (cc3)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
RICHARD LOWERY,

§
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
vs.
§
§
LILLIAN MILLS, in her capacity as
§
Dean of the McCombs School of
§
Business at the University of Texas at
§
Austin, ETHAN BURRIS, in his official §
capacity as Senior Associate Dean for
§
Academic Affairs of the McCombs
§
School of Business at the University of §
Texas-Austin, SHERIDAN TITMAN, in §
his official capacity as Finance
§
Department Chair for the McCombs
§
School of Business at the University of §
Texas-Austin,
§
§
Defendants.
§
________________________________

No. 1:23-CV-129-DAE

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“the Report”)
(Dkt. # 120) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Dustin Howell. After
reviewing the Report, the Court ADOPTS Judge Howell’s recommendations and
GRANTS Plaintiff Richard Lowery’s Opposed Motion for Leave to Amend the
Complaint and Add Jay Hartzell as Defendant (Dkt. # 94).

The facts preceding this Order are laid out in Judge Howell’s Report
and in this Court’s prior Order. (See Dkt. # 51.) In his Report, Judge Howell
found that it was unlikely that Defendants would suffer prejudice if Plaintiff is
allowed to amend his complaint, and that there is no bad faith or dilatory motive in
Plaintiff’s request to amend. (Dkt. # 120 at 6.) Additionally, Magistrate Judge
Howell determined that Plaintiff’s proposed amendments were not futile and
therefore recommended that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion to amend. (Id. at
11.)
Objections to the Report were due within 14 days after being served
with a copy. Where, as here, none of the parties objected to the Magistrate Judge’s
findings, the Court reviews the Report for clear error. United States v. Wilson, 864
F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989). After careful consideration, the Court adopts the
Magistrate Judge’s Report. The Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions
that: (1) the deadline to amend pleadings had not yet passed when the motion was
filed; (2) Defendants would not suffer prejudice if the motion is granted; (3) there
is no bad faith or dilatory motive in the request; and (4) the amendment is not futile
are correct. Therefore, the Court determines that the Magistrate Judge’s
conclusions and recommendations are neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to
law.

2

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. # 120) as the opinion of the Court and GRANTS
Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint and Add Jay
Hartzell as Defendant (Dkt. # 94).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: Austin, Texas, March 26, 2024.

______________________________________
David Alan Ezra
Senior United States District Judge

3