Ledesma v. Rubin

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION RAQUEL LEDESMA, § § Plaintiff § § § CASE NO. 6:24-CV-00401 § v. § § PHILLIP AGOK RUBIN, ELIJAH § MAKUOL JOCK, SPLIT LLC, and § GTL TRUCK LINES INC. d/b/a SPARTANNASH, Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Derek Gilliland. ECF No. 19. The report recommends Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) be DENIED. The report and recommendation was filed on February 27, 2025. 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)). Defendant filed objections on March 13, 2025. ECF No. 20. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the motion to dismiss, the responses, the report and recommendation, the objection to the report and recommendation, and the applicable laws. After that thorough review, the Court is persuaded that the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation should be adopted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Derek Gilliland, ECF No. 19, is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant’s motion to dismiss be DENIED.

SIGNED this 18th day of March, 2025. ‘

ALAN D ALBRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG