Christopher Carlson v. CRH Americas Materials, Inc.

W.D. Texas

Christopher Carlson v. CRH Americas Materials, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Texas·Decided May 12, 2026·No. 1:25-cv-00920·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Christopher Carlson, § Plaintiff, § § v. § CASE NO. 1:25-CV-920-ADA-ML § CRH Americas Materials, Inc., § Defendant. § §

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mark Lane. Dkt. 29. Judge Lane recommends that this Court GRANT Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 23) and that Plaintiff’s claim of defamation per se be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Id. at 13. The report was filed on March 31, 2026. This Court hereby adopts Judge Lane’s Recommendations. A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation, thereby securing de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A district court need not consider “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general objections.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United States Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)). Plaintiff filed objections on April 14, 2026. Dkt. 30. Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff’s objections on April 28, 2026. Dkt. 31. The Court has conducted de novo review of the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 29), Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. 30), Defendants’ Response (Dkt. 31), and the applicable facts and laws. After that thorough review, the Court is persuaded that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations should be adopted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Lane (Dkt. 29) is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objections (Dkt. 30) are OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 23) is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff's claim is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

SIGNED this 12" day of May, 2026.

OQ. ONoc Ls ALAN D ALBRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Christopher Carlson, § Plaintiff, § § v. § CASE NO. 1:25-CV-920-ADA-ML § CRH Americas Materials, Inc., § Defendant. § §

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mark Lane. Dkt. 29. Judge Lane recommends that this Court GRANT Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 23) and that Plaintiff’s claim of defamation per se be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Id. at 13. The report was filed on March 31, 2026. This Court hereby adopts Judge Lane’s Recommendations. A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation, thereby securing de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A district court need not consider “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general objections.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United States Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)). Plaintiff filed objections on April 14, 2026. Dkt. 30. Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff’s objections on April 28, 2026. Dkt. 31. The Court has conducted de novo review of the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 29), Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. 30), Defendants’ Response (Dkt. 31), and the applicable facts and laws. After that thorough review, the Court is persuaded that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations should be adopted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Lane (Dkt. 29) is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objections (Dkt. 30) are OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 23) is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff's claim is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

SIGNED this 12" day of May, 2026.

OQ. ONoc Ls ALAN D ALBRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG

Christopher Carlson v. CRH Americas Materials, Inc., (W.D. Tex. 2026).

Pincite

Christopher Carlson v. CRH Americas Materials, Inc. (Christopher Carlson v. CRH Americas Materials, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related