Reed v. Memorial Hermann Hospital

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ALFRED WAYNE REED,
Plaintiff,
versus
MEMORIAL HERMANN
HOSPITAL,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:24-cv-03903
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Alred Wayne Reed proceeds here pro se. He
alleges violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act related
to termination of his employment with Defendant
Memorial Hermann Hospital. See Dkt 1 at 3–4. The matter
was referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge Dena
Hanovice Palermo. Dkt 3.
Judge Palermo entered an order directing Plaintiff to
file proof of service by January 23, 2025, or to show cause
why the Court should not dismiss this case for want of
prosecution. Dkt 4. Plaintiff failed to file proof of service or
otherwise respond. Judge Palermo then entered a Report
and Recommendation recommending that this action be
dismissed without prejudice. Dkt 5.
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
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no
clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 27, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-03903 Document 7 Filed 03/27/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
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 6. On de novo review and
determination, they entirely lack merit. Plaintiff there
indicates intention to continue pursuing his claims. But he
nowhere demonstrates that he has attempted to effectuate
service on Memorial Hermann.
The objections by Plaintiff Alfred Wayne Reed to the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are
OVERRULED. Dkt 6.
No clear error otherwise appears upon review and
consideration of the Report and Recommendation, the
record, and the applicable law.
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this
Court. Dkt 5.
This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
A final judgment will enter separately.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on March 27, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:24-cv-03903 Document 7 Filed 03/27/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2