Gordon et al v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
TREMAINE GORDON and
CYNTHIA L COVINGTON,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Case No. 4:22-CV-04109
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC,
THOMAS WILLTROUT and GOLDIE
NICKELSON,
Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the November 24, 2025, Memorandum and
Recommendation (“M&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Peter Bray. (Dkt. No. 123).
Judge Bray made findings and conclusions and recommended that Defendants Lowe’s
Home Centers, LLC (“Lowe’s”) and Thomas Willtrout’s Motions for Summary Judgment,
(Dkt. Nos. 103, 104), be granted; that Defendants Lowe’s and Willtrout’s Objections to
Plaintiff Tremaine Gordon’s Declarations, (Dkt. No. 117), be denied as moot; and that
Defendant Lowe’s Amended Motion to Sever, (Dkt. No. 105), be denied as moot, (Dkt.
No. 123).
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 December 8, 2025, Plaintiff Tremaine
Gordon filed objections to Judge Bray’s M&R. (Dkt. No. 124). Gordon’s objections boil
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
December 11, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:22-cv-04109 Document 125 Filed on 12/11/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
down to claims that Judge Bray’s M&R “resolves factual inferences and credibility
[determinations] that Rule 56 reserves for a jury.” (Id. at 3).
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
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 Bray’s M&R, (Dkt. No. 123), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its
entirety as the holding of the Court; and
(2) Defendants Lowe’s and Willtrout’s Motions for Summary Judgment, (Dkt.
Nos. 103, 104), are GRANTED;
(3) Defendants Lowe’s and Willtrout’s Objections to Plaintiff Tremaine
Gordon’s Declarations, (Dkt. No. 117), are DENIED as MOOT; and
(4) Defendant Lowe’s Amended Motion to Sever, (Dkt. No. 105), is DENIED
as MOOT.
It is SO ORDERED.
Case 4:22-cv-04109 Document 125 Filed on 12/11/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
Signed on December 11, 2025.
___________________________________
DREW B. TIPTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:22-cv-04109 Document 125 Filed on 12/11/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 3