Manuel v. Office of Personnel Management

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JACQUELINE R. MANUEL, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-CV-03330
§
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL §
MANAGEMENT, §
§
Defendant. §
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the February 6, 2026, Memorandum and
Recommendation (“M&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Yvonne Y. Ho. (Dkt. No. 43).
Judge Ho made findings and conclusions and recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion to
Reopen Case, (Dkt. No. 40), and Application to proceed in forma pauperis, (Dkt. No. 41)
be denied, (Dkt. No. 43 at 1).
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 February 19, 2026, Manuel filed her
objections. (Dkt. No. 44). First, Manuel objects that the M&R fails to address ten different
“laws, rules, statutes and regulations.” (Dkt. No. 44 at 1–2). Second, Manuel objects that
the M&R fails to correctly apply the law. (Id. at 2). Third, Manuel objects to the M&R’s
finding that she failed to timely appeal. (Dkt. No. 44 at 2–3).
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
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 03, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:22-cv-03330 Document 45 Filed 04/03/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
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) Magistrate Judge Ho’s M&R, (Dkt. No. 43), is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED in its entirety as the holding of the Court;
(2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case, (Dkt. No. 40), is DENIED; and
(3) Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (Dkt. No. 41), is
DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
Signed on April 3, 2026.
___________________________________
DREW B. TIPTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:22-cv-03330 Document 45 Filed 04/03/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2