Jager v. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
HELOISA JAGER,
Plaintiff,
versus
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION,
FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:24-cv-05099
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Heloisa Jager proceeds here pro se. She sued
the Federal Aviation Administration for employment
discrimination. Dkt 1 at 3. She brings claims for, among
other things, sexual harassment and retaliation. Id at 7.
The FAA moved to dismiss sexual harassment and
retaliation claims premised on conduct in July 2022 due to
Plaintiff’s failure to timely exhaust administrative
remedies. Dkt 25. Plaintiff gave notice of her intent to
respond to such but hasn’t responded. See Dkt 27 at 1–2.
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Yvonne Y. Ho. Dkt 5. She issued a Memorandum and
Recommendation recommending that the motion by the
FAA for partial dismissal be granted and the relevant
claims be dismissed. Dkt 31 at 8.
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
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 23, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-05099 Document 56 Filed 01/22/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
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).
Plaintiff filed objections. Dkt 32. She contends the
Memorandum incorrectly concluded that Plaintiff failed to
timely oppose the FAA’s motion. Id at 1–2. And she further
claims that she timely exhausted administrative remedies.
Id at 2.
On de novo review and determination, Plaintiff’s
objections lack merit. The FAA filed its motion for partial
dismissal on June 16, 2025. Dkt 25. Plaintiff’s response
was thus due by July 7th, with failure to do so meriting
dismissal under Local Rule 7.4. She never filed a response.
And even if the undersigned were to construe her notice of
intent to respond as a timely response, that notice in no
way discloses the grounds for her opposition to the motion.
See Dkt 27 at 1–2. Dismissal is thus warranted under Local
Rule 7.4.
No clear error otherwise appears upon review and
consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation,
the record, and the applicable law.
The objections by Plaintiff Heloisa Jager to the
Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge are OVERRULED. Dkt 32.
The Memorandum and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkt 31.
The motion by Defendant United States Department of
Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration for
partial dismissal is GRANTED. Dkt 25.
Defendant’s claims premised on harassment and
retaliation in July 2022 are DISMISSED for lack of timely
exhaustion.
Case 4:24-cv-05099 Document 56 Filed 01/22/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
For avoidance of doubt, this Order doesn’t affect
Plaintiff’s remaining claims challenging post-July 2022
conduct.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
__________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
January 22, 2026
Case 4:24-cv-05099 Document 56 Filed 01/22/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3