Melinda Caldwell v. CSL Vifor Pharma, et al

S.D. Texas

Melinda Caldwell v. CSL Vifor Pharma, et al

DecidedOctober 22, 2025

Docket4:24-cv-00991

StatusUnknown

This text of Melinda Caldwell v. CSL Vifor Pharma, et al (Melinda Caldwell v. CSL Vifor Pharma, et al) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Melinda Caldwell v. CSL Vifor Pharma, et al, (S.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

October 23, 2025 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

MELINDA CALDWELL, § CIVIL ACTION NO Plaintiff, § 4:24-cv-00991 § § vs. § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § CSL VIFOR PHARMA, et al, §

Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Melinda Caldwell proceeds here pro se. She filed a complaint asserting violations of 42 USC §1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Dkt 1 at ¶¶56–60. The complaint itself seeks to recover damages from Defendant CSL Visor Pharma upon assertion that it has discriminated against her and harmed her in her occupation. ¶¶64–63. Also listed on the docket are Brad Upton, Kelly Urbaczewskiu, and Kathleen Davis, but Plaintiff didn’t name them in her complaint. Dkt 1. And she failed to serve them, despite receiving multiple extensions of time in which to do so. Dkts 8, 12, 14, 16, & 23. The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge Christina A. Bryan. Dkt 3. Judge Bryan issued a Memorandum and Recommendation in which she recommended that the claims by Plaintiff against Upton, Urbaczewskiu, and Davis be dismissed without prejudice for lack of service. Dkt 30. The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir 1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b) advisory committee note (1983). No party filed objections. No clear error appears upon review and consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation, the record, and the applicable law. The Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this Court. Dkt 30. The claims by Plaintiff Melinda Caldwell putatively asserted against Defendants Brad Upton, Kelly Urbaczewskiu, and Kathleen Davis are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED. Signed on October 22, 2025 , at Houston, Texas.

VBE. Hon. Charles Eskridge United States District Judge

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

October 23, 2025 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

MELINDA CALDWELL, § CIVIL ACTION NO Plaintiff, § 4:24-cv-00991 § § vs. § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § CSL VIFOR PHARMA, et al, §

Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Melinda Caldwell proceeds here pro se. She filed a complaint asserting violations of 42 USC §1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Dkt 1 at ¶¶56–60. The complaint itself seeks to recover damages from Defendant CSL Visor Pharma upon assertion that it has discriminated against her and harmed her in her occupation. ¶¶64–63. Also listed on the docket are Brad Upton, Kelly Urbaczewskiu, and Kathleen Davis, but Plaintiff didn’t name them in her complaint. Dkt 1. And she failed to serve them, despite receiving multiple extensions of time in which to do so. Dkts 8, 12, 14, 16, & 23. The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge Christina A. Bryan. Dkt 3. Judge Bryan issued a Memorandum and Recommendation in which she recommended that the claims by Plaintiff against Upton, Urbaczewskiu, and Davis be dismissed without prejudice for lack of service. Dkt 30. The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir 1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b) advisory committee note (1983). No party filed objections. No clear error appears upon review and consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation, the record, and the applicable law. The Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this Court. Dkt 30. The claims by Plaintiff Melinda Caldwell putatively asserted against Defendants Brad Upton, Kelly Urbaczewskiu, and Kathleen Davis are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED. Signed on October 22, 2025 , at Houston, Texas.

VBE. Hon. Charles Eskridge United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Melinda Caldwell v. CSL Vifor Pharma, et al, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melinda-caldwell-v-csl-vifor-pharma-et-al-txsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack