Jonathan C. Drewa v. San Antonio Zoological Society, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Texas

Jonathan C. Drewa v. San Antonio Zoological Society, Inc.

Trial Court Opinion

FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Getober 20, □□□□ WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION ay. NM JONATHAN C. DREWA, § DEPUTY Plaintiff, : v. : NO. SA-24-CV-01237-OLG-HJB SAN ANTONIO ZOOLOGICAL : SOCIETY, INC., § Defendant. : ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has considered United States Magistrate Judge Henry J. Bemporad’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), filed June 13, 2025, concerning pro se Plaintiff Jonathan C. Drewa’s First Amended Complaint. (See R&R, Dkt. No. 31.) A party who wishes to object to a Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations must serve and file specific written objections within 14 days. FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Plaintiff timely filed objections to the R&R on June 26, 2025 (see Dkt. No. 34). When a party objects to an R&R, the Court must make a de novo determination as to “any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see United States. v. Wilson,

864 F.2d 1219, 1221

(Sth Cir. 1989), cert. denied,

492 U.S. 918

(1989). Objections must be specific; frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need not be considered by the district court. Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n,

834 F.2d 419, 421

(Sth Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright,

677 F.2d 404

, 410 n.8 (Sth Cir. 1982), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. U.S. Auto. Ass’n,

79 F.3d 1415

(Sth Cir. 1996)). Any portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations that were not objected to are reviewed for clear error. Wilson,

864 F.2d at 1221

.

The Court has reviewed the entirety of the R&R de novo and finds that it is in all things correct and should be accepted. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Bemporad’s R&R (Dkt. No. 31) and, for the reasons set forth therein: Plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Texas Human Resources Code are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff's ability to plausibly restate those claims in a second amended pleading. It isso ORDERED. SIGNED this \F day of October 2025. CN ie ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown