Marceau Doze-Guillory v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION MARCEAU DOZE-GUILLORY, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-24-CV-1309-FB § DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY, § DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, § § Defendant. § ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART AND REJECTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court are: (1) the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed on February 24, 2026 (ECF No. 32); (2) Objections to the Report and Recommendations of the U.S. Magistrate Judge filed by the Plaintiff on March 10, 2026 (ECF No. 33); (3) Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation filed by the Defendant on March 10, 2026 (ECF No. 34); and (4) Response to Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation filed by the Defendant on March 24, 2026 (ECF No. 35). Where no party has objected to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of them. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made."). In such cases, the Court need only review the Report and Recommendation and determine whether they are either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). On the other hand, any Report or Recommendation to which there are objections requires de novo review by the Court. Such a review means that the Court will examine the entire record, and will when the objections are frivolous, conclusive, or general in nature. Battle v. United States Parole Commission, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). In the Report, United States Magistrate Judge Bemporad recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) be GRANTED such that the discrimination, retaliation, and

retaliatory-hostile-work environment claims in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14) be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and that Plaintiff’s racially-hostile-work-environment claim be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to allow one final opportunity for Plaintiff to amend her complaint to include well-pleaded factual allegations that plausibly support this claim. Plaintiff disagrees with the recommendation and asks the Court to reject it in its entirety and allow the case to proceed to trial. Defendant objects only to the recommendation that Plaintiff be allowed a fourth opportunity to re-plead her race-based hostile work environment claim, and in response to Plaintiff’s objections, notes that not only does Plaintiff not make a request for leave to amend, Plaintiff opposes any further amendment and claims it is not necessary. Therefore, Defendant asserts the only error in

the recommendation is that all of Plaintiffs claims should be dismissed with prejudice in light of the foregoing and particularly in light of the Court’s Standing Order procedure (ECF No. 2). The Court agrees. The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff’s Objections, Defendant’s Objections, and Defendant’s Response, and has conducted a de novo review of only those issues properly raised in the objections which are not frivolous, conclusive, or general in nature. The Court finds, after careful consideration of the record and the Report and Recommendation, that the Plaintiff’s objections lack merit and are overruled, but that Defendant’s objections and response have merit as to the dismissal of all claims

with prejudice. Therefore, the Court hereby accepts, approves, and adopts the Magistrate Judge's factual findings and legal conclusions contained in the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 32), and incorporates herein the arguments and authorities presented by Defendant in the Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 34); and (4) Response to Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 35), and finds the recommendation should be accepted in part such that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) should be GRANTED such that all of Plaintiff's claims and this case shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and rejected in part only as to the dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiffs racially-hostile-work-environment claim. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge filed in this cause on February 24, 2026 (ECF No. 32), is ACCEPTED IN PART pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED and all of Plaintiff's claims and this case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and REJECTED IN PART only as to the dismissal without prejudice of the racially-hostile-work- environment claim. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that motions pending, if any, are DENIED AS MOOT, and this case is now CLOSED. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 29th day of March, 2026.

jeer C a FRED BJERY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-