Gordon v. King et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JOSEPH GORDON,
Plaintiff,
versus
SEAN KING, et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:24-cv-04125
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Joseph Gordon proceeds here pro se. He sued
Defendants Sean King and Marcus DiFlavio in state court
for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Dkt 6-2 at 3–4 (original petition). He later amended his
petition to allege the same against Defendant Digital Air
Control, Inc. See Dkt 6-12 (amended petition). Defendants
removed based on federal question jurisdiction. See Dkts 1
at 4 & 6 at 2.
The case was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Dena Hanovice Palermo. Dkt 5. Prior order denied a
motion by Plaintiff to remand and granted a motion by
Plaintiff to dismiss his claims against King and DiFlavio,
adopting the recommendations of Judge Palermo to that
effect. See Dkt 18 at 2; see also Dkts 9 & 15.
Plaintiff then filed motion for leave to amend his
complaint and to strike depositions of King and DiFlavio.
Dkts 25 & 34. Digital Air moved for summary judgment.
Dkt 31. Judge Palermo denied Plaintiff’s motions and
recommended that the motion for summary judgment be
granted. See Dkt 41 at 20.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 24, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-04125 Document 44 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

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
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).
No party filed objections. No clear error 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 41.
The motion by Defendant Digital Air Control, Inc, for
summary judgment is GRANTED. Dkt 31.
This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
A final judgment will enter separately.
SO ORDERED
Signed on June 24, 2026, at Houston Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:24-cv-04125 Document 44 Filed 06/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2