Stanton v. Jarvis Christian College, Inc. ( 2019 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION AKIA STANTON, § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:18-CV-00479-JDK Plaintiff, § § v. § § JARVIS CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, § § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment. On October 9, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiff’s partial summary judgment motion (Docket No. 43) be denied and that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 42) be granted in part and denied in part. Docket No. 55. As to Defendant’s motion, the Magistrate Judge recommends (1) granting the motion in part by dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation and discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(2)(a) (“Title VII”) and for libel under Texas law and (2) denying the motion in part with respect to Plaintiff’s claims under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Id. Plaintiff Akia Stanton did not file any objections to the Report and Recommendation. Defendant Jarvis Christian College filed objections to the portions of the Report recommending denial of its summary judgment motion. Docket No. 57. This Court reviews the objected-to portions of a Report and Recommendation de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). The Court reviews all unobjected-to portions of the Report only for clear error or abuse of discretion. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law’’). Applying that standard of review here, the Court concludes that Defendant’s objections are without merit and that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court. All objections are OVERRULED. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 42) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’ s claims for Title VII discrimination, Title VII retaliation, and libel, and these claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 42) is DENIED as to Plaintiff's claims for FMLA retaliation and interference. Plaintiff's partial motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 43) is DENIED. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 13th day of November, 2019. en DY Konbe JERQMY D, RERNODIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE