Green v. United Parcel Service Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ROBERT GREEN, JR.,
Plaintiff,
versus
UNITED PARCEL
SERVICE, INC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-04435
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Robert Green, Jr., proceeds here pro se. He
sues Defendant United Sates Parcel Service, Inc, for
violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Dkt 1
at 2.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim. Dkt 11. Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint,
also alleging violations of Title VII. Dkt 16.
Judge Bennett notes that the amended complaint
contains new factual information pertinent to Plaintiff’s
claims. Dkt 30 at 3. He thus recommends that the motion
to dismiss be denied as moot without prejudice to
Defendant filing a new motion to dismiss targeted
specifically at the amended complaint. Ibid.
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
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 25, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04435 Document 31 Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
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).
No party filed objections. No clear error 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 30.
The motion by Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc, to
dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT and WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Dkt 11.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
June 25, 2026
Case 4:25-cv-04435 Document 31 Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2