Salazar v. Lockheed Martin Corporation

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
MARC GABRIEL SALAZAR 	§
§
V. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-1364-P
§
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION 	§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Marc Gabriel Salazar’s Emergency Motion
for Entry of Judgment and Liquidated Damages [doc. 36], filed February 10, 2026.1 	In the
motion, Plaintiff “moves for an immediate Entry of Judgment[,]” arguing, inter alia, that the
“‘Seniority Laundering’ scheme is a documented fraud.” 	(Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for
Entry of Judgment and Liquidated Damages (“Pl.’s Mot.”) at 1.) 	Because a decision on the
merits has not been reached in this case, the Court FINDS and CONCLUDES that Plaintiff’s
motion is premature. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a), 58. Thus, the Court RECOMMENDS that
Plaintiff’s motion be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to an action has the right to serve and file
specific written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate
Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation (“FCR”) within fourteen (14) days
after the party has been served with a copy of such FCR. 	The United States District Judge need
1 The Court notes that Plaintiff filed his motion using the Emergency Filing Procedures. Plaintiff should
not be using such procedures unless Plaintiff is “in danger of missing a filing due to a system outage or [has a] bona
fide emergency that requires judicial review during non-business hours.” See U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas Website/Filing/ECF Administrative Procedures Manual/Emergency Filing Procedures. 	Instead,
Plaintiff needs to follow the procedures set forth in the ECF Administrative Procedures Manual for filing any
pleading, motion or other paper.
Case 4:25-cv-01364-P Document 37 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

2
only make a de novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge’s
proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file, by the date stated above, a specific written objection
to a proposed factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain
error or manifest injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal
conclusions accepted by the United States District Judge. 	See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds,
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).
ORDER
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is hereby ORDERED that each party is granted until
February 25, 2026, to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge’s
proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if objections
are filed and the opposing party chooses to file a response, the response shall be filed within
seven (7) days of the filing date of the objections.
SIGNED February 11, 2026.
____________________________________
JEFFREY L. CURETON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-01364-P Document 37 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>