Dzorvakpor v. Fujifilm Diosynth Biotechnologies

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
LESLIE DZORVAKPOR,
Plaintiff,
versus
FUJIFILM DIOSYNTH
BIOTECHNOLOGIES and
FUJIFILM NORTH
AMERICA CORPORATION,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-03054
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Leslie Dzorvakpor proceeds here pro se. He
filed a complaint against his former employer under Title
VII to recover for alleged discrimination based on race, sex,
and national origin. Dkt 12 (amended complaint).
Defendants Fujifilm Diosynth Biotechnologies, and
Fujifilm North America Corporation, filed a motion to
dismiss, asserting that the claims are barred by the statute
of limitations and fail to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. Dkt 21.
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Peter Bray. Dkt 3. He issued a Memorandum and
Recommendation recommending that Defendants’ motion
to dismiss be granted because Plaintiff’s claims are time
barred. Dkt 33.
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
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 12, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03054 Document 36 Filed 05/12/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
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 34. He objects to the
characterization of his complaint as being (i) “sparse on
facts,” (ii) lacking “facial plausibility,” (iii) failing to “state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Id at 1–2. He
further objects to the recommendation that (iv) equitable
tolling shouldn’t apply. Id at 2.
Upon de novo review and determination, Plaintiff’s
objections lack merit. Only the fourth objection regarding
equitable tolling has any relevance to the determination
that Plaintiff’s claims are time barred. The Magistrate
Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff hadn’t pleaded any
facts suggesting the narrow equitable tolling exception
should apply here. Dkt 33 at 3–4.
The objections fail to otherwise demonstrate legal error
on the part of the Magistrate Judge.
The objections by Plaintiff to the Memorandum and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are OVERRULED.
Dkt 34.
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 33.
The motion by Defendants to dismiss is GRANTED.
Dkt 21.
This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
A final judgment will enter separately.
Case 4:25-cv-03054 Document 36 Filed 05/12/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
May 12, 2026
Case 4:25-cv-03054 Document 36 Filed 05/12/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3