Tullis v. ExxonMobil Corporation

• Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
• Decided: January 18, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00192
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT January 18, 2023 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

BRIAN TULLIS, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-CV-00192 § EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION, § § Defendant. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION On December 2, 2022, United States Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton issued a “Memorandum and Recommendation” (M&R, D.E. 25). The parties were provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. 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 M&R 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 M&R. 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 M&R (D.E. 25), and all other relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, ExxonMobil’s motion to dismiss (D.E. 7) is DENIED, ExxonMobil’s motion to stay (D.E. 8) is GRANTED, Tullis’s motion for discovery (D.E. 1 / 2 11) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and this case is STAYED pending the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Hewitt v. Helix Energy Solutions, Inc., 15 F.4th 289 (Sth Cir. 2021), petition for cert. granted, 2022 WL 1295708 (U.S. May 2, 2022) (No. 21-984). ORDERED on January 18, 2023. [ely GONZAIGS RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2