UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT November 30, 2020 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

JOSE CARLOS GUAJARDO, § § Plaintiff, § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-00172 § BURGER KING FRIES RESTAURANT § MANAGEMENT, LLC, § § Defendant. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court are two motions to dismiss filed by Defendant, complaining that Plaintiff failed to properly plead his case. D.E. 13, 14. On October 20, 2020, United States Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton issued her “Memorandum and Recommendation” (D.E. 22), recommending that the Court construe Plaintiff’s pleadings as alleging claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Consequently, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny both motions to dismiss. 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);

(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. While Plaintiff filed a note apparently expanding on his claims, no objections have been timely filed. See D.E. 24. 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 Industries, Inc.,

(Sth Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Services Auto Ass’n,

(Sth Cir. 1996)). Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (D.E. 22), 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, the Court construes the complaint as alleging a claim under the ADA and Defendant’s motions to dismiss (D.E. 13, 14) are DENIED. ORDERED this 30th day of November, 2020.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2