Heather Leach v. HEB

W.D. Texas

Heather Leach v. HEB

DecidedDecember 9, 2025

Docket5:23-cv-01426

StatusUnknown

This text of Heather Leach v. HEB (Heather Leach v. HEB) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Heather Leach v. HEB, (W.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

FILED December 09, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION BY: NM DEPUTY HEATHER LEACH, § Plaintiff, : v. : NO. SA-23-CV-01426-OLG-ESC HEB, ; Defendant. : ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has considered United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), filed November 6, 2025, concerning Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award (Dkt. No. 27). (See R&R, Dkt. No. 32.) A party who wishes to object to a Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations must serve and file specific written objections within 14 days. FED. R. Cv. P. 72(b)(2). Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, was served with a copy of the R&R via certified mail on November 12, 2025 (see Dkt. No. 35), and timely filed her objections on November 18, 2025 (see Dkt. No. 36). Defendant filed a response to the objections (see Dkt. No. 37), which Plaintiff has moved to strike. 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 (Sth Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). Objections must be specific; frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need - not be considered by the district court. Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (Sth Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (Sth Cir. 1982), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. U.S. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (Sth Cir. 1996)). Any portions of the

Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations that were not objected to are reviewed for clear error. Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221. Despite Plaintiff's general and largely conclusory objections (see generally Dkt. No. 36 at 1-14), the Court has nevertheless reviewed the R&R de novo and finds that it is in all things correct and should be accepted. The Court therefore ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Dkt. No. 32) and, for the reasons set forth therein, Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award (Dkt. No. 27) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. No. 38) is DENIED. It is so ORDERED.

SIGNED this | day of December “Cua ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge

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

FILED December 09, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION BY: NM DEPUTY HEATHER LEACH, § Plaintiff, : v. : NO. SA-23-CV-01426-OLG-ESC HEB, ; Defendant. : ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has considered United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), filed November 6, 2025, concerning Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award (Dkt. No. 27). (See R&R, Dkt. No. 32.) A party who wishes to object to a Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations must serve and file specific written objections within 14 days. FED. R. Cv. P. 72(b)(2). Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, was served with a copy of the R&R via certified mail on November 12, 2025 (see Dkt. No. 35), and timely filed her objections on November 18, 2025 (see Dkt. No. 36). Defendant filed a response to the objections (see Dkt. No. 37), which Plaintiff has moved to strike. 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 (Sth Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). Objections must be specific; frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need - not be considered by the district court. Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (Sth Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (Sth Cir. 1982), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. U.S. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (Sth Cir. 1996)). Any portions of the

Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations that were not objected to are reviewed for clear error. Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221. Despite Plaintiff's general and largely conclusory objections (see generally Dkt. No. 36 at 1-14), the Court has nevertheless reviewed the R&R de novo and finds that it is in all things correct and should be accepted. The Court therefore ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Dkt. No. 32) and, for the reasons set forth therein, Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award (Dkt. No. 27) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Dkt. No. 38) is DENIED. It is so ORDERED.

SIGNED this | day of December “Cua ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Heather Leach v. HEB, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heather-leach-v-heb-txwd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack