Hunter v. First Transit et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ROBERT HUNTER,
Plaintiff,
versus
FIRST TRANSIT, INC and
TRANSDEV,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:26-cv-02201
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Robert Hunter sues Defendants First Transit,
Inc, and Transdev for certain acts of discrimination. Dkt 1
at 1–3. He proceeds here pro se and applied to proceed in
forma pauperis. Dkt 2.
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Yvonne Y. Ho. Dkt 4. She entered a Memorandum
and Recommendation in which she granted Plaintiff’s
application to proceed in forma pauperis but recommended
that his claims be dismissed without prejudice for failure
to state a claim under 28 USC §1915(e)(2)(B). Dkt 6 at 3–
7. She also granted Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint
by May 12, 2026. Id at 8. He did so. See Dkt 7 (amended
complaint).
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
May 19, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02201 Document 8 Filed 05/19/26 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 6.
The claims by Plaintiff Robert Hunter in the original
complaint are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Dkt 1.
For the avoidance of doubt, the amended complaint
remains as the operative pleading and may yet be subject
to dismissal upon consideration by the Magistrate Judge.
Dkt 7.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
May 19, 2026
Case 4:26-cv-02201 Document 8 Filed 05/19/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2