United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE
JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Ron
Clark, United States District Judge
The
court referred this case to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn,
United States Magistrate Judge, for pretrial management
pursuant to General Order 72-1. The court has received and
considered Judge Hawthorn's report and recommendation
(Doc. No. 29), which recommends granting the motion for
summary judgment (Doc. No. 24) filed by Defendants Texas Farm
Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Texas Farm Bureau
Underwriters, Texas Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company,
and Farm Bureau County Mutual Insurance Company of Texas
(collectively, “Texas Farm Bureau”) and
dismissing Plaintiff John Haynes' claims under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) and
42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as converting Texas Farm
Bureau's Rule 12(c) motion for a judgment on the
pleadings to a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment with
respect to Haynes' Rehabilitation Act claim. Haynes has
filed objections to the report and recommendation (Doc. No.
35).
A party
who files timely, written objections to a magistrate
judge's report and recommendation is entitled to a de
novo determination of those findings or recommendations
to which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2)-(3). “Parties
filing objections must specifically identify those findings
[to which they object]. Frivolous, conclusive or general
objections need not be considered by the district
court.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677
F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on
other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Although
Haynes filed his objections one day after the fourteen-day
objection period, the court chooses to review the report and
recommendation de novo and concludes that his
objections are without merit. Judge Hawthorn recommended
granting Texas Farm Bureau's motion for summary judgment
with respect to Haynes' claims under the ADA and §
1983. Because Texas Farm Bureau moved for judgment on the
pleadings on Haynes' Rehabilitation Act claims, pursuant
to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge
Hawthorn recommended converting this motion to a Rule 56
motion for summary judgment, in order to consider summary
judgment evidence contained outside the face of Haynes'
complaint. Doc. No. 29, at 10-11. Judge Hawthorn instructed
Haynes to submit evidence demonstrating that Texas Farm
Bureau receives federal funding, thus subjecting it to the
purview of the Rehabilitation Act, within the same
fourteen-day period he was afforded to object to Judge
Hawthorn's report. Id. at 11.
Haynes
did not submit any evidence to establish Texas Farm Bureau
receives federal funding, and objects only to Judge
Hawthorn's conclusions with respect to Haynes' ADA
claims. Doc. No. 35, at 3-4. In his report, Judge Hawthorn
concluded that while there was a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether Haynes was treated as an employee by Texas
Farm Bureau (Doc. No. 29, at 5-7), Haynes failed to create a
genuine dispute as to whether Texas Farm Bureau denied Haynes
a reasonable accommodation for his disability, an arthritic
condition called ankylosing spondylitis. Id. at 7-9.
In his
objections, Haynes argues that Texas Farm Bureau's
statement that Haynes was free to set his own work schedule
and hours was “mere pretense, ” and instead Texas
Farm Bureau “dictated to [Haynes] his work as an
agent.” Doc. No. 35, at 3-4. Haynes does not specify
which summary judgment evidence supports his conclusion that
this accommodation was a pretense, instead merely asserting
that “[a] reasonable trier of fact could look at the
evidence, which tends to show [Texas Farm Bureau's]
extensive control of Plaintiff's work throughout his
career, and determine that [Texas Farm Bureau] did not
reasonably accommodate or intend to accommodate
Plaintiff's disability before terminating his
position.” Id. at 4.
Haynes
appears to confuse the two separate legal issues within his
ADA claim. While evidence of Texas Farm Bureau's
“control” over Haynes' work supports
Haynes' assertion that he was treated as an employee,
this evidence does not support the conclusion that Texas Farm
Bureau denied Haynes a reasonable accommodation. As Judge
Hawthorn observed in his report, Haynes requested an
accommodation for his arthritic condition on April 23, 2015,
specifically requesting the ability to refrain from working
nights or weekends, consistent with his rheumatologist's
recommendations. Doc. No. 25, ex. U. In response to this
request, John Stephens, Texas Farm Bureau's Vice
President of Legal & Compliance, indicated that while he
believed that the ADA did not apply to Haynes, due to Texas
Farm Bureau's position that Haynes was an independent
contractor, and not an employee, Haynes was free to set his
own hours. Id., ex. F at 1. Haynes' objection to
Judge Hawthorn's report fails to identify any new
evidence in the record to suggest that Stephens' response
was a pretense, or that Texas Farm Bureau did not actually
provide that accommodation once Haynes requested it.
Accordingly,
the objections filed by Haynes are overruled and the report
and recommendation of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED.
Haynes' claims under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act and
§ 1983 are dismissed with prejudice. The court declines
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Haynes' state
law claims for breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment,
conspiracy, violations of section 541.054 of the Texas
Insurance Code, tortious interference and estoppel, and those
claims are dismissed without prejudice to Haynes' ability
to reassert these claims in state court. See 28
...