Fierra Hall v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation

E.D. Texas

Fierra Hall v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation

DecidedNovember 25, 2025

Docket5:25-cv-00013

StatusUnknown

This text of Fierra Hall v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation (Fierra Hall v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fierra Hall v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, (E.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

FIERRA HALL, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-CV-13-RWS-JBB § PILGRIM’S PRIDE CORPORATION, § § Defendant. §

ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. Docket No. 8. The above-captioned case was heretofore referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Docket No. 2. On November 7, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation, recommending the denial of Defendant’s motion. Docket No. 37. No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed. Because no objections have been filed, any aggrieved party is barred from de novo review by the District Court of the Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations, and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017); Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, No. 4:21-CV-00203-RAS, 2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021). The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (where no objections to a magistrate judge’s report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”). The Court hereby adopts the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 37) as the findings and conclusions of this Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation’s motion (Docket No. 8) is DENIED. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 25th day of November, 2025.

[dohert LU Lbpectsr C2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

FIERRA HALL, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-CV-13-RWS-JBB § PILGRIM’S PRIDE CORPORATION, § § Defendant. §

ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. Docket No. 8. The above-captioned case was heretofore referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Docket No. 2. On November 7, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation, recommending the denial of Defendant’s motion. Docket No. 37. No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed. Because no objections have been filed, any aggrieved party is barred from de novo review by the District Court of the Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations, and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017); Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, No. 4:21-CV-00203-RAS, 2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021). The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (where no objections to a magistrate judge’s report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”). The Court hereby adopts the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 37) as the findings and conclusions of this Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation’s motion (Docket No. 8) is DENIED. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 25th day of November, 2025.

[dohert LU Lbpectsr C2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Fierra Hall v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fierra-hall-v-pilgrims-pride-corporation-txed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack