Gentry v. Encompass Health Corporation et al

U NITED S TATES D ISTRICT C OURT
SOUTHERN D ISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON D IVISION
D EIDRA G ENTRY,
Plaintiff,
versus
ENCOMPASS H EALTH
REHABILITATION H OSPITAL
OF PEARLAND, LLC, and
ENCOMPASS H EALTH
CORPORATION ,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-01299
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
O RDER A DOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Deidra Gentry sues Defendants Encompass
Health Rehabilitation Hospital of Pearland, 	LLC, 	and
Encompass Health Corporation. Dkt 1. She brings only one
claim for retaliation under 31 USC §3730(h). Id at 12. The
matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge
Yvonne Ho. Dkt 21.
This 	is 	the 	second 	suit 	by 	Plaintiff 	related 	to
termination of her employment with Encompass Pearland.
See Gentry v Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital of
Pearland, LLC, 4:23-cv-01291 (SD Tex). The first case was
a qui tam action that was dismissed with prejudice for
failure to state a claim. See 2024 WL 5433052 (SD Tex),
adopted by 2025 WL 838263 (SD Tex); see also 157 F4th
758, 	766 	(5th 	Cir) 	(affirming dismissal). 	Despite this,
Plaintiff relies on virtually identical background facts in
her current complaint. See Dkt 1 at 7–12; see also Dkt 18-1
(redline comparison of prior and current complaints).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 14, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-01299 Document 36 Filed 03/13/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
Encompass Pearland moved to dismiss this action.
Dkt 18. It argued that res judicata bars Plaintiff’s claims
and that Plaintiff fails to plead a plausible claim for
retaliation. Id at 11–23. It also moved to stay discovery
pending ruling on the motion to dismiss. Dkt 25.
The Magistrate Judge granted the motion to stay
discovery. See Dkt 29 (minute entry). She then entered a
Memorandum and Recommendation recommending that
the motion to dismiss be granted on res judicata grounds.
Dkt 30 at 4–10. She also denied Plaintiff’s request for leave
to amend, finding that amendment would be futile. Id
at 11. She thus recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims
with prejudice. Ibid.
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of
a 	magistrate 	judge 	to 	which 	a 	party 	has 	specifically
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(C); see
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no
clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v
PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
Plaintiff filed objections. Dkt 34. She argues that res
judicata doesn’t apply because her retaliation claim was
subject to an arbitration agreement that prevented her
from bringing it earlier. And she objects to the Magistrate
Judge’s stay of discovery as it prevented investigation into
the existence and terms of that agreement. Id at 3–7.
On de novo review and determination, the objections
lack merit. The Memorandum and Recommendation is
thorough and well-reasoned. And the Magistrate Judge
correctly determined that Plaintiff had the opportunity to
bring her retaliation claim in conjunction with her prior qui
tam action but did not. See Dkt 19 at 6–10. The existence
of 	an 	arbitration 	agreement 	wouldn’t 	have 	absolutely
barred such a claim. And it was correctly observed that
Plaintiff may not strategically neglect to even attempt to
Case 4:25-cv-01299 Document 36 Filed 03/13/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
bring such a claim and then allege in a later action that she
could not have done so. The Magistrate Judge also properly
stayed discovery and refused leave to amend as futile and
to prevent waste of party and judicial resources. Id at 3, 11.
The 	objections 	by 	Plaintiff 	Deidra 	Gentry 	to 	the
Memorandum 	and 	Recommendation 	of 	the 	Magistrate
Judge are OVERRULED . Dkt 34.
No clear error otherwise appears upon review and
consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation,
the record, and the applicable law.
The 	Memorandum 	and 	Recommendation 	of 	the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkt 30.
The 	motion 	by 	Defendant 	Encompass 	Health
Rehabilitation Hospital of Pearland, LLC, to dismiss is
GRANTED . Dkt 18.
All claims by Plaintiff Deidra Gentry against both
Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
A final judgment will enter separately.
SO ORDERED .
Signed on March 13, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-01299 Document 36 Filed 03/13/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3