Eli Flores v. HEB

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

ELI FLORES,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. SA-23-CV-01430-JKP

HEB,

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Chestney’s Report and Recommendation (R&R) concerning Plaintiff Eli Flores’s Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“for appeal purposes”) [ECF No. 52], which the Court construes as a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) on Appeal; Flores’s Motion to Stay Enforcement of Arbitration Award Pending Appeal [ECF No. 50]; and Defendant HEB’s Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award [ECF No. 53]. ECF No. 60. Magistrate Judge Chestney recommends Flores’s motions [#50, #52] be DENIED and HEB’s motion [#53] be GRANTED. ECF No. 60. Flores filed timely objections to the R&R. ECF No. 63. Upon consideration, the Court ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the R&R. Legal Standard When a party objects to an R&R, the Court must make a de novo determination as to “any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see United States. v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. l 989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). Objections must be specific; frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need not be considered. 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), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. U.S. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)). The district court will review any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations that were not objected to are reviewed for clear error. Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221.

Discussion Flores submits multiple objections to the R&R in a filing titled, “OBJECTION TO THE COURT’S CHARACTERIZATION OF PLAINTIFF’S FILINGS AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE.” ECF No. 63. Flores objects “to the foundational premise of the Report and Recommendation, which frames Plaintiff’s motions as lacking merit while recommending confirmation of the arbitration award.” Id. Specifically, Flores: (1) objects to the R&R’s “failure to account for preservation of appellate rights;” (2) objects to “the Court’s overlooking of substantive opposition” by implicitly adopt[ing] Defendant’s position that Plaintiff failed to present substantive arguments;” (3) “objects to the finding that his appeal is not taken in good faith or is ‘frivolous’” because “[t]his conclusion is not supported by the record and fails to account for the substantive legal and constitutional issues Plaintiff has consistently raised throughout this litigation;” (4) “raises concern that the current posture of the case appears to credit Defendant's assertions while discounting Plaintiff's evidence;” (5) “restricts [Flores’s] access to appellate review based on an

incorrect characterization of [his] appeal as frivolous;” (6) contends the finding that his appeal is not taken in good faith is clearly erroneous and unsupported by the record; (7) “objects to the recommendation that the arbitration award be confirmed” [because] “[t]he [R&R] frames confirmation as a procedural inevitability. However, this characterization is incomplete and fails to account for the substantive legal challenges properly raised and preserved; (8) contends “[t]he recommendation to confirm the arbitration award is based on an incomplete analysis that overlooks: [Flores’s] timely Motion to Vacate, the pending appeal, substantive FAA § 10 challenges, and Evidence of procedural unfairness. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the recommendation to confirm the arbitration award be rejected;” (9) “objects to the recommendation that a stay of enforcement be denied” because the R&R concludes Flores’s “request is premature while simultaneously recommending confirmation of the arbitration award. This creates a procedural inconsistency;” and (10) argues denial of a stay would result in “Ti]mmediate and irreparable harm,” “[l]oss of meaningful appellate review,” and “[e]nforcement of a disputed arbitration award before constitutional issues are resolved.” ECF No. 63. This Court reviewed all of Flores’s objections and finds most to be recitation of his general arguments supporting his position in this case, or the arguments are conclusory and unsupported. See generally ECF No. 63. Given the extensive litigation history and Flores’s pro se status, in the interest of caution the Court construed the objections liberally and reviewed the R&R de novo. The Court finds the R&R is in all things correct and should be accepted. The Court, therefore, ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Chestney’s R&R (ECF NO. 60) and, for the reasons set forth therein, Flores’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) on Appeal [ECF No. 52] Flores’s Motion to Stay Enforcement of Arbitration Award Pending Appeal [ECF No. 50] are DENIED. HEB’s Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award [ECF No. 53] is GRANTED. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 8th day of April, 2026. 4 / \anen ey CLOW.