Burnett v. Penske Logistics

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:24-cv-04732 Document58-_ Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 1of2
United States District Court

Southem District of Texas
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ENIERFED
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS June 25, 2026

HOUSTON DIVISION

Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

CAMERON BURNETT,
Plaintiff,

Vv. CIVIL ACTION NO. H:24-CV-4732

PENSKE LOGISTICS,

Mmmm Mim tM tM Ww wm

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATION JUDGE

The Court has received from the Magistrate Judge an Order
(Document No. 55) denying Plaintiff Cameron Burnett’s Motion to
Compel (Document No. 45) and a Report and Recommendation (Document
No. 55) to grant Defendant Penske Logistics’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Document No. 40). Plaintiff has filed his Objections
(Document No. 56), to which Defendant Penske Logistics has filed
its Response in Support of the Magistrate Judge’s rulings (Document
No. 57).

First, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s Order
Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Document No. 45). The
district judge may consider any objections filed by the parties on
non-dispositive matters referred to the Magistrate Judge, and
modify or set aside the Magistrate Judge’s Order if it is clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (A); Fev. R

Civ. P. 72(a); Ford v. Estelle, 740 F.2d 374, 377 (5th Cir. 1984).

After careful consideration of Plaintiff’s objections to

Plaintiff’s non-dispositive motion, the Court finds that the Order

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 4:24-cv-04732 Document58 _ Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2

of the Magistrate Judge signed May 20, 2026 is not clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, in accordance with the
Magistrate Judge’s Order, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Document
No. 57) is therefore DENIED.

After having made a de novo determination of Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment, and Plaintiff’s Response thereto, and
having considered the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge and Plaintiff’s objections and Defendant’s response thereto,
the Court is of the opinion that the findings and recommendations
of the Magistrate Judge are correct and should be and hereby are
accepted by the Court in their entirety. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED for the reasons set forth in Judge
Palermo’s Order and Report and Recommendation (Document No. 55)
entered May 20, 2026, which is adopted in its entirety as the
opinion of this Court, Defendant Penske Logistics’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Document No. 40) is GRANTED. It is therefore

ORDERED that Plaintiff Cameron Burnett shall TAKE NOTHING on
‘his claims against Penske Logistics, and Plaintiff’s case is
DISMISSED on the merits with prejudice.

The Clerk will enter this Order, providing a correct copy to
all parties of record. rH

_
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this QS as of June, 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE