Lowery v. Mills
1:23-cv-00129
W.D. Tex.
Mar 26, 2024
Check Treatment
Docket

RICHARD LOWERY, Plaintiff, vs. LILLIAN MILLS, in her capacity as Dean of the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin, ETHAN BURRIS, in his official capacity as Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs of the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas-Austin, SHERIDAN TITMAN, in his official capacity as Finance Department Chair for the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas-Austin, Defendants.

No. 1:23-CV-129-DAE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

March 26, 2024

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“the Report“) (Dkt. # 120) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Dustin Howell. After reviewing the Report, the Court ADOPTS Judge Howell‘s recommendations and GRANTS Plaintiff Richard Lowery‘s Opposed Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint and Add Jay Hartzell as Defendant (Dkt. # 94).

The facts preceding this Order are laid out in Judge Howell‘s Report and in this Court‘s prior Order. (See Dkt. # 51.) In his Report, Judge Howell found that it was unlikely that Defendants would suffer prejudice if Plaintiff is allowed to amend his complaint, and that there is no bad faith or dilatory motive in Plaintiff‘s request to amend. (Dkt. # 120 at 6.) Additionally, Magistrate Judge Howell determined that Plaintiff‘s proposed amendments were not futile and therefore recommended that the Court grant Plaintiff‘s motion to amend. (Id. at 11.)

Objections to the Report were due within 14 days after being served with a copy. Where, as here, none of the parties objected to the Magistrate Judge‘s findings, the Court reviews the Report for clear error. . After careful consideration, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge‘s Report. The Court finds the Magistrate Judge‘s conclusions that: (1) the deadline to amend pleadings had not yet passed when the motion was filed; (2) Defendants would not suffer prejudice if the motion is granted; (3) there is no bad faith or dilatory motive in the request; and (4) the amendment is not futile are correct. Therefore, the Court determines that the Magistrate Judge‘s conclusions and recommendations are neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge‘s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 120) as the opinion of the Court and GRANTS Plaintiff‘s Opposed Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint and Add Jay Hartzell as Defendant (Dkt. # 94).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: Austin, Texas, March 26, 2024.

David Alan Ezra

Senior United States District Judge