Reyna v. DaVita Inc.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

JOSEPH ANTHONY REYNA and DREAMS § OVER DOLLARS § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § 1:25-CV-1028-RP § DAVITA INC., § § Defendant. §

ORDER Before the Court is the report and recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower concerning pro se Plaintiffs Joseph Anthony Reyna and Dreams Over Dollars (“Plaintiffs”) Complaint, (Dkt. 1), and Application to Proceed in District Court Without Paying Fees or Costs, (Dkt. 2). (R. & R., Dkt. 4). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 1(d) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Judge Hightower issued her report and recommendation on July 29, 2025. (Id.). Plaintiffs received the report and recommendation no later than August 1, 2025. (Dkts. 7, 9). As of the date of this order, no party has filed objections to the report and recommendation. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), a party may serve and 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 and, in doing so, secure de novo review by the district court. When no objections are timely filed, a district court can review the magistrate’s report and recommendation for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (“When no timely objection is filed, the [district] court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). Because no party has filed timely objections, the Court reviews the report and recommendation for clear error. Having done so and finding no clear error, the Court accepts and adopts the report and recommendation as its own order. The Court additionally notes that while Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 7, 2025, (Dkt. 8), the amended complaint does not address the concerns raised in the report and recommendation. A district court may deny leave to amend if it has a “substantial reason” to do so. Lynw—Lea Travel Corp., 283 F.3d 282, 286 (5th Cir. 2020). The futility of amendment is one such substantial reason to deny leave to amend. S/ripling v. Jordan Prod. Co., LLC, 234 F.3d 863, 872-73 (5th Cir. 200). Here, because the amended complaint 1s frivolous, the amended complaint would be futile. The Court will deny leave to amend. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, (R. & R., Dkt. 4)., is ADOPTED. Plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court will enter final judgment by separate order. SIGNED on August 21, 2025.

ROBERTPITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE