Brown v. PatelCASE ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED
Brown v. PatelCASE ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED
Trial Court Opinion
May 21, 2025 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
BRYCE BROWN, § CIVIL ACTION NO Plaintiff, § 4:24-cv-05036 § § vs. § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § CHANDRESH PATEL § and G&A § OUTSOURCING III LLC, § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Bryce Brown proceeds here pro se. He filed a complaint against Defendants Chandresh Patel and G&A Outsourcing III LLC, raising race and sex discrimination and retaliation claims. Dkt 4. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Yvonne Y. Ho. Dkt 5. She issued the pending Memorandum and Recommendation on April 22, 2025. Dkt 21. She recommends that the motion by Defendants to compel arbitration and stay the case be granted. Dkt 11. She further recommends that the motion by Plaintiff for summary judgment be dismissed as moot. Dkt 16. No objections were filed. The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) &
28 USC §636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir 1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v PPG Industries Inc,
434 F3d 303, 308(5th Cir 2005), citing Douglass v United Services Automobile Association,
79 F3d 1415, 1430(5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b) advisory committee note (1983). No clear error otherwise appears upon review and consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation, the record, and the applicable law. The Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this Court. Dkt 21. The motion by Defendants Chandresh Patel and G&A Outsourcing II] LLC to compel arbitration and stay this action is GRANTED. Dkt 11. The motion by Plaintiff Bryce Brown for summary judgment is DENIED AS MOOT. Dkt 16. This case is STAYED and ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED during the pendency of arbitration. The parties are ORDERED to provide a status report on October 31st and June 30th of each year going forward as to the status of the arbitration process. SO ORDERED. Signed on May 15, 2025, at Houston, Texas.
VE. Hon. Charles Eskridge United States District Judge
Reference
- Status
- Unknown