Moore v. General Motors LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
D OMINIQUE M OORE,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 4:25-cv-00616-P
G ENERAL MOTORS LLC, ET AL .,
Defendants.
ORDER
On December 16, 2025, the United States Magistrate Judge issued
Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation (“FCR”) in the above-
captioned case. ECF No. 43. The FCR recommends that Defendant
General Motors LLC’s (GM) Motion to Dismiss be partially granted. Id.
Plaintiff filed an Objection to the FCR on December 30, 2025. ECF
No. 44.
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the following:
1. 	The pleadings and record;
2. 	The FCR of the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 43);
3. 	The Plaintiff’s written objections to the FCR (ECF No. 44);
4. 	GM’s Response to Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 45); and
5. 	The applicable law.
The Court, having conducted a de novo of the FCR in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), concludes that the findings and conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge are correct, and adopts them as the findings and
conclusions of the Court.
Plaintiff’s objections are essentially that Plaintiff should be excused
from federal pleading standards. See generally ECF No. 44. While pro se
filings are construed liberally, pro se litigants, like all other parties,
must abide by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See United States v.
Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir. 1994); see also Boswell v. Honorable
Governor of Tex., 138 F. Supp. 2d 782, 785 (N.D. Tex. 2000). Accordingly,
Case 4:25-cv-00616-P-BJ Document 48 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

2
it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED, and the
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are
ADOPTED.
Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s claims against GM for: (1) sexual
harassment in violation of Title VII and the Texas Labor Code; (2)
disability-related issues in violation of the ADA and the Texas Labor
Code; (3) sex discrimination based on termination in violation of Title
VII and the Texas Labor Code; (4) concerted protected activity in
violation of the NLRA; and (5) wrongful termination under Texas
Common Law are DISMISSED with prejudice.1
Plaintiff’s claims against GM for: (1) sex discrimination based on
being 	transferred 	to 	a 	more 	physically 	demanding 	department 	in
violation of Title VII and the Texas Labor Code and (2) retaliation in
violation of Title VII and the Texas Labor Code shall proceed.
SO ORDERED on this 27th day of January 2026.
1If a court determines that dismissal of a claim is appropriate, it should be
with prejudice if amending the claim would be futile or “the plaintiff has
alleged his best case.” Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 327 (5th Cir. 1999);
see Schiller v. Physicians Res. Group, Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 566 (5th Cir.2003).
Plaintiff has already been given the opportunity to file an Amended Complaint
after Defendant filed its initial Motion to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 22, 23) that raised
the same issues raised in Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss currently
pending. Therefore, any additional leave for Plaintiff to amend her claims
would be futile.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
REGINALEA KEMP ,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 4:23-cv-00841-P
REGIONS BANK ET AL .,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File
Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 18. Having considered the Motion
and applicable docket entries, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
SO ORDERED on this 18th day of September 2023.
______________________________________________
Mark T. Pittman
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-00616-P-BJ Document 48 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>