Nicolasa Montoya v. H-E-B, LP

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION NICOLASA MONTOYA, § § Plaintiff, § § V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-24-CV-00422-FB § H-E-B, LP, § § Defendant. § ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court are the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 55) concerning Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 43) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 52), along with Plaintiff’s written objections (ECF No. 57) thereto. Where no party has objected to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. 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 it is 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 and Recommendation to which objection is made requires de novo review by the Court. Such a review means that the Court will examine the entire record, and will make an independent assessment of the law. The Court need not, however, conduct a de novo review when the objections are frivolous, conclusive, or general in nature. Battle v. United States Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). The Court has thoroughly analyzed Plaintiffs submission in light of the entire record. As required by Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), the Court has conducted an independent review of the entire record in this cause and has conducted a de novo review with respect to those matters raised by the objections. After due consideration, the Court concludes the objections lack merit. For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff's evidence amounts to nothing more than evidence that an HEB employee was in close proximity to possible liquid on the floor of the store immediately before Plaintiff fell. Because Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence that HEB had a reasonable opportunity to discover water on the floor during the relevant 20-second period, she cannot prevail on her premises- liability cause of action and HEB is entitled to summary judgment. For these same reasons, Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment shall be denied. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 55) is ACCEPTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 43) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 52) is DENIED. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that remaining motions pending with the Court, if any, are Dismissed as Moot and this case is CLOSED. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 9th day of March, 2026.

Feet CF D BIERY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-