Lumpkin v. Credit Human Federal Credit Union

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION TYREKE LUMPKIN, § § Plaintiff, § § V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-24-CA-0842-FB § CREDIT HUMAN FEDERAL CREDIT § UNION, MICHAEL SWAN, JONATHAN § VILLARREAL, DIANA ISTRE, § § Defendants. § ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, filed in the above-captioned cause on August 25, 2025. (Docket no. 70). To date, no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been received.1 Because no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made."). The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finds its reasoning to be neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (docket no. 70) is ACCEPTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that Any party who desires to object to a Magistrate's findings and recommendations must serve and file his, her or its written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the findings and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 635(b)(1). If service upon a party is made by mailing a copy to the party’s last known address, “service is complete upon mailing.” FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b)(2)(C). If service is by electronic means, “service is complete upon transmission.” Id. at (E).

Defendants Michael Swan, Diana Istre and Jonathan Villarreal’s Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 9) is GRANTED such that Plaintiff's claims against the individual defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and Defendant Credit Human’s Partial Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 10) is GRANTED IN PART, as to Plaintiff's ADA claims, and DENIED IN PART, as to Plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim. Plaintiff's remaining claims are for discrimination based on his religion and race, harassment/hostile work environment due to his religion and race, and retaliation under Title VII. This case continues to be referred to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial proceedings.

It is so ORDERED.

SIGNED this 15th day of September, 2025.

Feet CF D BIERY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE