Carmona v. Forrest

Full title: ANTHONY CARMONA, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN FORREST, FREER TRUCKING, INC., ALTUS…

Court: United States District Court, Southern District of Texas

Date published: Jun 30, 2023

CIVIL 4:20-CV-03922 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 30, 2023)

Opinion

CIVIL 4:20-CV-03922

06-30-2023

ANTHONY CARMONA, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN FORREST, FREER TRUCKING, INC., ALTUS HOUSTON HOSPITAL, IMPERIAL SURGERY CENTER and INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR NEUROSCIENCE, Defendants.

DREW B. TIPTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DREW B. TIPTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pending before the Court is the June 15, 2023 Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Peter Bray. (Dkt. No. 86). Judge Bray made findings and conclusions and recommended that Defendants' No-Evidence Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Claims Related to Complex Medical Conditions, (Dkt. No. 43), be granted. (Dkt. No. 86).

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 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed two objections to Magistrate Judge Bray's recommendation that Defendants' No-Evidence Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Claims Related to Complex Medical Conditions be granted. (Dkt. No. 87 at 2). First, Plaintiff objects to Judge Bray's analysis of Plaintiff's expert causation evidence. (Id. at 3-7). Second, Plaintiff objects to Judge Bray's application of the summary judgment standard. (Id. at 7-8).

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) Magistrate Judge Bray's M&R, (Dkt. No. 86), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety as the holding of the Court; and

(2) Defendants' No-Evidence Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Claims Related to Complex Medical Conditions, (Dkt. No. 43), is GRANTED.

It is SO ORDERED.