Manuel v. Office of Personnel Management

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JACQUELINE R MANUEL,
Plaintiff,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Case No. 4:22-CV-03330
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT,
Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the May 19, 2026, Memorandum and
Recommendation (“M&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Yvonne Y. Ho. (Dkt. No. 48).
Judge Ho made findings and conclusions and recommended that Manuel’s Motions for
Reconsideration, (Dkt. Nos. 44, 46), be denied, (Dkt. No. 48).
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 June 2, 2026, Manuel filed objections
that largely restate arguments she raised earlier in the case and that the Court has already
addressed. (Dkt. No. 49). She also contends that the agency and this Court committed
procedural errors and imposed unclear deadlines. (Id.).
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
conducting this de novo review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 18, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:22-cv-03330 Document 50 Filed 06/17/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
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 Ho’s M&R, (Dkt. No. 48), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its
entirety as the holding of the Court;
(2) Manuel’s Motions for Reconsideration, (Dkt. Nos. 44, 46), are DENIED;
and
(3) Any further relief sought by Manuel about the issues raised in this case
shall be by appeal to the appropriate forum.
It is SO ORDERED.
Signed on June 17, 2026.
___________________________________
DREW B. TIPTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:22-cv-03330 Document 50 Filed 06/17/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2