Maria Dewitt v. Magnificus Corporation

Opinion

FILED March 25, 2026 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS eee een □□□□ SAN ANTONIO DIVISION py NM DEPUTY MARIA DEWITT, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL NO. SA-25-CV-510-OLG § MAGNIFICUS CORPORATION, § § Defendant. §

ORDER The Court has considered United States Magistrate Judge Henry J. Bemporad’s Corrected Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) (Dkt. No. 50), filed on February 25, 2026, that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 10) be granted. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed objections (Dkt. No. 47) to the Report, and Defendant filed a response (Dkt. No. 54) thereto." When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de novo review as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989). Frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need not be considered by the district court. See Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (Sth Cir. 1987). Any portions of the magistrate judge’s finding or recommendation that were not objected to are reviewed for clear error. Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221. Plaintiff’s objections are either frivolous or were not properly raised before

'Plaintiff filed her objections in response to the original Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 37) but failed to refile those objections with respect to the corrected Report. Nevertheless, because the corrected Report made only minor, technical modifications, the Court considers the objections herein. To the extent Defendant’s response may be construed as objections to the Report, those objections are OVERRULED.

Judge Bemporad in the first instance. See, e.g., Croy v. United States, 697 F. Supp. 3d 653, 663 (W.D. Tex. 2023) (“Arguments that are raised for the first time after a report and recommendation is filed are generally waived unless they concern subject matter jurisdiction.”). Accordingly, the Objections (Dkt. No. 47) are OVERRULED, the Report (Dkt. No. 50) is ACCEPTED and, for the reasons set forth therein, the Motion (Dkt. No. 10) is GRANTED as set forth below: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful termination, non-payment of wages, and age discrimination are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs defamation claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may request leave to file an amended complaint clarifying her allegations with respect to this claim. IT IS SO ORDERED.

SIGNED on March vs , 2026. Sass ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge