Brod v. Sprint Corporation

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT February 16, 2022 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION

DAVID BROD, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION H-20-1854 § SPRINT CORP. & SPRINT/UNITED § MANAGEMENT CO., § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the court is a memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) filed by Magistrate Judge Christina A. Bryan. Dkt. 41. The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendant Sprint’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 24) and that Plaintiff David Brod’s claims be dismissed with prejudice. The parties were provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge's M&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been timely filed. When no timely objection to a magistrate judge's M&R is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge's M&R. Guillory v. PPG Industries, Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Services Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)). After reviewing the M&R and applicable law, the court finds no clear error on the face of the record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Comm. Note (1983). Accordingly, the M&R is ADOPTED IN FULL and the action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed at Houston, Texas on February 16, 2022.

_________________________________ Gray H. Miller Senior United States District Judge