Hernandez v. Wilsonart LLC

Filing 50

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 44 Report and Recommendations, GRANTED IN PART/DENIED IN PART, such that Plaintiffs hostile work environment claim is DISMISSED, and DefendantsMotion for Summary Judgment is DENIED IN PART as to Plaintiffs age discrimination claim and retaliation claim. 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Wilsonart LLC.. Signed by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. (wg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
ARNULFO HERNANDEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILSONART LLC,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL NO. SA-17-CV-00897-JKP-HJB

O R D E R ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Henry Bemporad’s Report and Recommendation
filed on July 31, 2019, and the parties’ objections to the report. (Doc. Nos. 44, 47,48). Magistrate
Judge Bemporad recommended Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 21) be
granted in part as to Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim and denied in part as to Plaintiff’s
age discrimination and retaliation claims.
This Court shall make a de novo review of those portions of any Report and Recommendation to which any party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); See also Longmire v. Guste, 921
F.2d 620, 623 (5th Cir.1991). In conducting a de novo review, the Court will examine the record
pertinent to the objections and must conduct its own analysis of the applicable facts and make an
independent assessment of the law. The Court is not required to give any deference to the
magistrate judge’s findings. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 689 (1980) (Stewart, J.,
dissenting) (“The phrase ‘de novo determination’ has an accepted meaning in the law. It means
an independent determination of a controversy that accords no deference to any prior resolution
of the same controversy.”); Shiimi v. Asherton Indep. Sch. Dist., 983 F.2d 233, 1993 WL 4732, at

*3 n. 18 (5th Cir. Jan. 8, 1993). The Court will not conduct a de novo review pertaining to any
objections that are frivolous, conclusive or general in nature. See Battle v. United States Parole
Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
This Court conducted a de novo review of the parties’ objections to the Report and Recommendation and carefully reviewed the record pertinent to those objections. At this time, genuine issues of material fact exist which preclude summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s age discrimination and retaliation claims. Summary Judgment is warranted as to Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim.
Accordingly, this Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Bemporad’s Report
and Recommendation in its entirety.
It is ORDERED Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 21) be GRANTED IN PART such that Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim is DISMISSED, and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED IN PART as to Plaintiff’s age discrimination
claim and retaliation claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 1st day of October 2019.

JASON PULLIAM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2