From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stuntz v. Ashland Elastomers, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Oct 17, 2018
CASE NO. 1:14-CV-00173-MAC (E.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2018)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:14-CV-00173-MAC

10-17-2018

MICHAEL DAVID STUNTZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. ASHLAND ELASTOMERS, LLC, ET AL., Defendants.


ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING DEFENDANT LION'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF STUNTZ'S RETALIATION CLAIM

This case is assigned to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, for pre-trial management. On September 21, 2018, Judge Hawthorn entered a report (Doc. No. 268) recommending the Court grant "Defendant Lion's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment" (Doc. No. 216) and dismiss Plaintiff Stuntz's retaliation claims with prejudice.

A party who files timely, written objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation is entitled to a de novo determination of those findings or recommendations to which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2)-(3). "Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings [to which they object]. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court." Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Stuntz raises three objections to Judge Hawthorn's report, but these objections are largely a restatement of his arguments in his response and sur-reply to Lion's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. See Doc. Nos. 226-1, 234. After considering Stuntz's objections, the court finds they are without merit and that Judge Hawthorn's findings and conclusions are correct.

It is, therefore, ORDERED that the magistrate judge's "Report and Recommendation" (Doc. No. 268) is ADOPTED, Defendant Lion's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 216) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff Stuntz's individual retaliation claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act against Lion Elastomers is DISMISSED with prejudice.

Signed this date

Oct 17, 2018

/s/_________

MARCIA A. CRONE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Stuntz v. Ashland Elastomers, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Oct 17, 2018
CASE NO. 1:14-CV-00173-MAC (E.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2018)
Case details for

Stuntz v. Ashland Elastomers, LLC

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL DAVID STUNTZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. ASHLAND ELASTOMERS, LLC, ET…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Date published: Oct 17, 2018

Citations

CASE NO. 1:14-CV-00173-MAC (E.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2018)

Citing Cases

Lobo v. Sprint Safety, Inc.

Accordingly, district courts in the Fifth Circuit have presumed that that successor liability applies to FLSA…

Credit v. Altus Hospice

After review of the applicable case, the undersigned finds that the Plaintiff sufficiently pled that…