Creighton v. Aldi (Texas) L.L.C.

Full title: DONIECE CREIGHTON, Plaintiff, v. ALDI (TEXAS) L.L.C., Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

Date published: Nov 17, 2020

CASE NO. 6:19-cv-00268-JDK-KNM (E.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2020)

Opinion

CASE NO. 6:19-cv-00268-JDK-KNM

11-17-2020

DONIECE CREIGHTON, Plaintiff, v. ALDI (TEXAS) L.L.C., Defendant.

JEREMY D. KERNODLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell according to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On October 14, 2020, Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 68), recommending that Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No. 39) be DENIED.

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). Here, Defendant did not file objections in the prescribed period. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge's findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews her legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report are filed, the standard of review is "clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law").

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations, the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. The Court therefore adopts the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 68) as the findings of this Court.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report (Docket No. 68) be ADOPTED and that Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No. 39) is DENIED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 17th day of November, 2020.

/s/_________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE