Velasco v. IAS Logistics DFW, LLC d/b/a Pinnacle Logistics

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION
ANALICIA VELASCO, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Civil Action No. 7:23-CV-00323
§
IAS LOGISTICS DFW, LLC d/b/a §
PINNACLE LOGISTICS, §
§
Defendant. §
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the January 27, 2026, Memorandum and
Recommendation (“M&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Peter Bray. (Dkt. No. 28).
Judge Bray made findings and conclusions and recommended that Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 23), be granted, (Dkt. No. 28).
The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the M&R.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). On February 11, 2026, Velasco filed
objections to the M&R asserting that it “resolves factual disputes requiring a credibility
determination” and that it “violates the Supreme Court’s axioms on summary
judgment.” (Dkt. No. 29 at 1–2). While these objections were filed after the 14-day
deadline had passed, (see Dkt. No. 28 at 21), the Court will nevertheless consider them.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court is required to “make a de
novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge’s] report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection [has been] made.” After
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 12, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 7:23-cv-00323 Document 30 Filed 02/12/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
conducting this de novo review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The Court has carefully considered de novo those portions of the M&R to which
objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendations for plain error. Finding no error, the Court accepts the M&R and
adopts it as the opinion of the Court. It is therefore ordered that:
(1) Judge Bray’s M&R, (Dkt. No. 28), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its
entirety as the holding of the Court; and
(2) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (Dkt. No. 23), is GRANTED.
It is SO ORDERED.
Signed on February 12, 2026.
___________________________________
DREW B. TIPTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 7:23-cv-00323 Document 30 Filed 02/12/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2