Brown v. Patel et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
BRYCE BROWN,
Plaintiff,
versus
CHANDRESH PATEL and
G&A OUTSOURCING III
LLC,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:24-cv-05036
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Bryce Brown proceeds here pro se. He filed
this lawsuit, asserting claims pursuant to 8 USC §1981 and
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for racial and sex
discrimination related to his employment with Defendants
Chandresh Patel and G&A Outsourcing III LLC. See Dkt 4
(amended complaint). The matter was referred for
disposition to Magistrate Judge Yvonne Y. Ho. Dkt 5.
Last year, Defendants moved to compel arbitration and
stay this action. Dkt 11. The motion to compel arbitration
was granted, and this action was stayed and
administratively closed for the pendency of those
proceedings. Dkts 21 (memorandum and recommendation)
& 22 (order adopting M&R).
On February 26, 2026, the arbitrator issued an order
granting the motion by Defendants for summary judgment
and dismissing Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. Dkt 27-1
(arbitration order).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 14, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-05036 Document 31 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
Pending is a motion by Defendants to confirm the
arbitrator’s award and to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims in this
action with prejudice. Dkt 27.
Judge Ho issued a Memorandum and Recommendation
recommending that the motion be granted because
(i) Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion, rendering it
unopposed under Local Rule 7.4, and (ii) the record
contains no grounds to vacate or modify the arbitrator’s
award. Dkt 28.
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).
None of the parties filed objections. 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 28.
The motion by Defendants Chandresh Patel and G&A
Outsourcing III LLC to confirm the arbitrator’s award and
to dismiss this action with prejudice is GRANTED. Dkt 27.
This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
A final judgment will issue by separate order.
Case 4:24-cv-05036 Document 31 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
May 14, 2026
Case 4:24-cv-05036 Document 31 Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3