Randy Walker v. Performance Food Group, Inc. and Mark Baltz

W.D. Texas

Randy Walker v. Performance Food Group, Inc. and Mark Baltz

DecidedSeptember 25, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-00469

StatusUnknown

This text of Randy Walker v. Performance Food Group, Inc. and Mark Baltz (Randy Walker v. Performance Food Group, Inc. and Mark Baltz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Randy Walker v. Performance Food Group, Inc. and Mark Baltz, (W.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Randy Walker, § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 1:25-cv-00469-ADA § Performance Food Group, Inc. and § Mark Baltz, § Defendants. §

ORDER Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower concerning Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Dkt. 34. Judge Hightower issued her report and recommendation on August 29, 2025. Id. at 9. Plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation on September 23, 2025. Dkt. 46. A party may file specific, written objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations 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)(1)(C). A district court need not, however, conduct a de novo review when the objections are frivolous, conclusive, or general in nature. Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). Because Plaintiff has filed timely objections to the report and recommendation, the Court has conducted an independent review of the record in this cause and has conducted a de novo review with respect to those matters raised by Plaintiff. After due consideration, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's objections lack merit and adopts the report and recommendation. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 11) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs suit is DISMISSED in its entirety under Rule 12(b)(6) with prejudice. Plaintiff is DENIED leave to amend his complaint. SIGNED on September 25, 2025. C Daemon ALAN D ALBRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Randy Walker, § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 1:25-cv-00469-ADA § Performance Food Group, Inc. and § Mark Baltz, § Defendants. §

ORDER Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower concerning Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Dkt. 34. Judge Hightower issued her report and recommendation on August 29, 2025. Id. at 9. Plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation on September 23, 2025. Dkt. 46. A party may file specific, written objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations 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)(1)(C). A district court need not, however, conduct a de novo review when the objections are frivolous, conclusive, or general in nature. Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). Because Plaintiff has filed timely objections to the report and recommendation, the Court has conducted an independent review of the record in this cause and has conducted a de novo review with respect to those matters raised by Plaintiff. After due consideration, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's objections lack merit and adopts the report and recommendation. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 11) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs suit is DISMISSED in its entirety under Rule 12(b)(6) with prejudice. Plaintiff is DENIED leave to amend his complaint. SIGNED on September 25, 2025. C Daemon ALAN D ALBRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Randy Walker v. Performance Food Group, Inc. and Mark Baltz, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randy-walker-v-performance-food-group-inc-and-mark-baltz-txwd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack