Stevenson v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC DO NOT DOCKET. CASE HAS BEEN REMANDED.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT November 26, 2024 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk VICTORIA DIVISION

BRITTNEY STEVENSON, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23-CV-00061 § WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, LLC, et § al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE On October 16, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock issued his “Memorandum and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge” (D.E. 30). The parties were provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been timely filed. When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)). Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation (D.E. 30), and all other relevant 1 / 2 documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court: ¢ GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint (D.E. 22); ¢ DIRECTS the Clerk to docket Plaintiff's amended complaint (D.E. 22-2); * GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for remand (D.E. 23); and * REMANDS this case to the 24th Judicial District Court of Calhoun County, Texas for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. ORDERED on November 26, 2024.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2