Gantt v. Texas Southern University et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
EDWARD GANTT,
Plaintiff,
versus
TEXAS SOUTHERN
UNIVERSITY, et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-02537
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Edward Gantt proceeds here pro se. He brings
claims against Defendant Texas Southern University and
various of its employees for age discrimination, hostile
work environment, and wrongful termination pursuant to
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Texas
Commission on Human Rights Act. See Dkt 1 at ¶¶25–29.
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Richard W. Bennett. See Dkt 8.
Defendants brought a motion to dismiss for improper
service, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and failure to
state a claim. Dkt 12. They specifically contend that
Plaintiff failed to effectuate proper service, that his claims
are barred by sovereign immunity, and that he otherwise
fails to bring a plausible claim for relief. See id at 3–8.
Judge Bennett entered a Memorandum and
Recommendation recommending that the motion be
granted as to subject-matter jurisdiction and that Plaintiff
be denied leave to amend given futility of further
amendment. See Dkt 24 at 3–7. He thus also recommended
that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See id at 7.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 02, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-02537 Document 26 Filed 06/01/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
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. See Dkt 25. He specifically
contends that the Magistrate Judge failed to apply the
Supreme Court’s decision in Ex Parte Young, 209 US 123
(1908), that he should have been granted leave to amend,
and that he has otherwise adequately alleged age
discrimination. See id at 2–4.
On de novo review and determination, the objections
lack merit. The Magistrate Judge thoroughly and correctly
determined that sovereign immunity bars Plaintiff’s
claims. He specifically determined that Ex Parte Young
does not apply because Plaintiff brings claims solely for
monetary damages against state employees in their official
capacity. See Dkt 24 at 4–5. This is correct, as the relief
requested in the complaint is strictly monetary in nature.
See Dkt 1 at 12–13.
The Magistrate Judge also correctly determined that
there is no waiver or abrogation of sovereign immunity as
to claims under the ADEA or TCHRA. See Dkt 24 at 5–6.
And he correctly concluded that any further attempt at
repleading would be futile given the lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. See id at 6–7. Plaintiff’s contention that he has
adequately alleged a claim for age discrimination has no
bearing on this defect.
The objections by Plaintiff Edward Gantt to the
Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge are OVERRULED. Dkt 25.
Case 4:25-cv-02537 Document 26 Filed 06/01/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
To the extent that Plaintiff there seeks leave to amend
his complaint, such request is DENIED.
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 24.
The motion by Defendants to dismiss is GRANTED.
Dkt 12.
This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
A final judgment will enter separately.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
June 01, 2026
Case 4:25-cv-02537 Document 26 Filed 06/01/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3