IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION RORY A. WATSON, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-24-CV-027-FB § PETE HEGSETH, SECRETARY, UNITED § STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; § DEFENSE COMMISSARY AGENCY, § § Defendant. § ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court are: (1) the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed on April 8, 2025 (docket #26); (2) Plaintiff’s Response to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed on April 15, 2025 (docket #30); and (3) Defendant’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation filed on April 21, 2025 (docket #31). Where no party has objected to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of them. See

(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."). In such cases, the Court need only review the Report and Recommendation and determine whether they are either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson,

(5th Cir.), cert. denied,

(1989). On the other hand, any Report or Recommendation to which there are objections requires de novo review by the Court. Such a review means that the Court will examine the entire record, and will make an independent assessment of the law. The Court need not, however, conduct a de novo review when the objections are frivolous, conclusive, or general in nature. Battle v. United States Parole In the Report, Magistrate Judge Chestney recommends to this Court that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (docket #22) be DENIED IN PART as to Plaintiffs claims for retaliation under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act but GRANTED IN PART as to all of Plaintiff's remaining claims. The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff's Response and the Defendant’s Objections and has conducted a de novo review of the issues raised by the Defendant in his objections. The Court finds, after careful consideration of the record and the Report and Recommendation, that the objections lack merit and are overruled. Therefore, the Court hereby accepts, approves, and adopts the Magistrate Judge's factual findings and legal conclusions contained in the Report and Recommendation (docket #26), and finds the recommendation should be accepted such that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (docket #22) is DENIED IN PART as to Plaintiff's claims for retaliation under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act and GRANTED IN PART such that all of Plaintiff's remaining claims are DISMISSED. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 30th day of September, 2025.

jeer C a FRED BIERY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-