Bollman v. Walmart Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT June 24, 2025 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk VICTORIA DIVISION

SHAYNE BOLLMAN, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:24-CV-00019 § WALMART INC., § § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE On June 5, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock issued his “Memorandum and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge” (D.E. 21), recommending that the Court grant Defendant Walmart Inc’s motion for summary judgment. 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); 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 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 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 memorandum and recommendation (D.E. 21), 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, Defendant Walmart Inc.’s motion for summary judgment (D.E. 17) is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

ORDERED on June 24, 20235. eke GONZAIGS RAMOS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2/2