Cantwell v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company, LLCCase remanded to the 113th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
TIMOTHY CANTWELL,
Plaintiff,
versus
GREAT LAKES DREDGE &
DOCK COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-03355
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Timothy Cantwell sued Defendant Great
Lakes Dredge & Dock Company, LLC, for wrongful
termination in the 113th Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas. See Dkt 1-2 (original petition). Defendant
removed, claiming Plaintiff’s claim can only proceed under
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. See Dkt 1 at
¶¶6–8. The matter was referred for disposition to
Magistrate Judge Yvonne Ho. Dkt 4.
Plaintiff moved to remand. Dkt 6. He argues that he
brings a claim under Texas law rather than federal law and
that he exhausted all administrative remedies necessary to
bring this claim. Id at 2–6. The Magistrate Judge entered
a Memorandum and Recommendation recommending that
the motion be granted. Dkt 11. She specifically found that
Plaintiff’s original petition didn’t present a federal
question and that the artful pleading doctrine didn’t apply.
Id at 3–10.
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
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 16, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03355 Document 14 Filed 03/16/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
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).
Defendant filed objections. Dkt 13. It contends that the
Magistrate Judge erred in referring to factual contentions
within Plaintiff’s motion rather than his petition. Id at 2–
4. And it argues Plaintiff’s only viable claim is under the
ADEA such that a federal question exists. Id at 4–5.
On de novo review and determination, the objections
lack merit. The Memorandum and Recommendation is
thorough and well-reasoned. The Magistrate Judge
correctly found that the petition does not on its face present
a federal question. Whether Plaintiff has a viable claim
under Texas law remains for the state court to determine.
The objections otherwise fail to show at present that
subject-matter jurisdiction exists in federal court. If on
remand Plaintiff amends his complaint to assert a federal
claim, or some other writing indicates a federal claim has
been placed at issue, upon timely removal this issue of
remand might be decided differently.
The objections by Defendant Great Lakes Dredge &
Dock Company, LLC, to the Memorandum and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are OVERRULED.
Dkt 13.
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 11.
The motion by Plaintiff Timothy Cantwell to remand is
GRANTED. Dkt 6.
Case 4:25-cv-03355 Document 14 Filed 03/16/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
This action is REMANDED to the 113th Judicial District
Court of Harris County, Texas.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on March 16, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-03355 Document 14 Filed 03/16/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3