Suarez v. Step Trucking, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Texas·Decided May 19, 2025·No. 5:24-cv-00547·Unknown

Opinion

FILED May 19, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT isnt pustaicror □□□□□ WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION py NM DEPUTY ROBERTO SUAREZ, § Plaintiff, : v. : NO. SA-24-CV-00547-OLG STEP TRUCKING, INC. and SAEED- : AL-GAHMI SAEED AHMED, § Defendants. : ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has considered United States Magistrate Judge Henry J. Bemporad’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), filed May 1, 2025, concerning Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 24). (See R&R, Dkt. No. 31.) A party who wishes to object to a Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations must serve and file specific written objections within fourteen days. FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Defendants, through counsel, were electronically served with a copy of the R&R on May 5, 2025, and timely filed their objections on May 16, 2025 (see Dkt. No. 33). When a party objects to an R&R, the Court must make a de novo determination as to “any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see United States. v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). Objections must be specific; frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need not be considered by the district court. Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (Sth Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (Sth Cir. 1982), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. U.S. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (Sth Cir. 1996)). Any portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations that were not objected to are reviewed for clear error. Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221.

The Court has reviewed the R&R de novo and finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Defendants are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff's gross negligence claim against Defendant Ahmed. The Court therefore ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Dkt. No. 31) and, for the reasons set forth therein, Defendants’ Motion (Dkt. No. 24) is DENIED IN PART and DENIED AS MOOT IN PART. It isso ORDERED.

SIGNED this 4 day of May, 2025. ON ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge

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

Suarez v. Step Trucking, Inc., (W.D. Tex. 2025).

Suarez v. Step Trucking, Inc. (Suarez v. Step Trucking, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related