govinfo:USCOURTS-txsd-2_24-cv-00133-3

1 / 4 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION 
 
 
CRYSTAL M. ENGLISH, 
 
              Plaintiff, 
 
VS. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00133  
  
CHRISTUS SPOHN HEALTH SYSTEM 
CORPORATION, 
 
              Defendant. 
 
 
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION  
Before the Court is Plaintiff Crystal M. English ’s Motion for Reconsideration of 
Partial Summary Judgment (D.E. 87). On March 24, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge 
Jason B. Libby issued his Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R), recommending that 
the Court deny her motion . D.E. 88. Both parties were  provided proper notice of, and 
opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. F ed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 
636(b)(1); Special Order No. C-2023-1. Plaintiff timely filed her objections on April 1, 
2026. D.E. 91.  
STANDARD OF REVIEW 
 A district court must review de novo  any portion of a magistrate judge’s proposed 
findings and recommendations on dispositive matters to which the parties have filed 
specific, written objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). After considering proper objections, the 
district court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, those portions of the 
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 14, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:24-cv-00133     Document 98     Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD     Page 1 of 4
2 / 4 
proposed findings and recommendations. Id. As to any portion for which no objection is 
filed, a district court reviews for clearly erroneous factual findings and conclusions of law. 
United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam). 
DISCUSSION  
The Magistrate Judge concluded that  Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider simply 
rehashes her prior arguments, is conclusory in nature, and fails to raise a satisfactory reason 
to reconsider the prior decision. D.E. 88, p. 3. Plaintiff raises five objections to the M&R.  
The Court begins with Plaintiff’s final objection, wherein she argues that the 
Magistrate Judge erred in concluding that her motion for reconsideration merely restate s 
prior arguments. D.E. 91, pp. 3-4. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and her subsequent 
objections rely on evidence and arguments that the Court has already considered and 
rejected. See D.E. 75, 85.  Plaintiff raised the same arguments in her objections to the 
Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation on Defendant’s motion for 
summary judgment. See D.E. 77, 82. Thus, the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that 
Plaintiff’s motion rehashes arguments that have already been rejected. Therefore, the 
objection is OVERRULED, but t he Court considers the substance of Plaintiff’s other 
objections below. 
In Plaintiff’s first two objections, she argues that the prior ruling s on Defendant’s 
motion for summary judgment made improper credibility determinations  and failed to 
analyze material evidence . D.E. 91, p. 2.  While s he lists several examples of specific 
evidence she claims the prior orders improperly weighed or failed to address, she does not 
Case 2:24-cv-00133     Document 98     Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD     Page 2 of 4
3 / 4 
explain how this evidence contradicts the conclusions from the prior rulings . The 
Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the Court’s prior orders properly analyzed this 
evidence and did not make credibility determinations. 
The Court previously  concluded that Plaintiff failed to (1) present competent 
comparator evidence and (2) show that Defendant’s legitimate basis for terminating her 
was pretextual . See D.E. 75, pp. 23 -24; D.E. 85, pp. 3 -4. Plaintiff’s objections do not 
address the lack of a comparator. And her argument regarding competing evidence, 
particularly with respect to Defendant’s alleged divergence from disciplinary policies and 
procedures does not address the underlying nondiscrim inatory basis for her termination.  
Accordingly, the objections are OVERRULED. 
In Plaintiff’s third objection , she argues that the pretext standard has been 
misapplied. D.E. 91, p. 3. The Court’s prior orders correctly set out and applied the burden-
shifting framework for race discrimination claims.  See D.E. 75 , pp. 22-25. Plaintiff’s 
evidence was insufficient to meet her burden to show that Defendant’s proffered basis for 
terminating her was pretextual. The conclusory statements about this evidence in her 
objection do not alter this conclusion. Moreover, the objection does not address the Court’s 
primary conclusion that Plaintiff failed to state a prima facie case for race discrimination. 
Id. For these reasons, the objection is OVERRULED. 
In her fourth objection, Plaintiff contends that she presented evidence for a cat’s 
paw theory of causation  and the Court did not properly consider  it. D.E. 91, pp. 3. The 
Court previously rejected this theory because Plaintiff failed to present evidence that  
Case 2:24-cv-00133     Document 98     Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD     Page 3 of 4
4 / 4 
Catherine Webb acted with racially discriminatory animus, which is a required element for 
a cat’s paw theory of causation. See D.E. 85, p. 3; Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., 969 
F.3d 571, 577 (5th Cir. 2020) . Plaintiff’s objection presents no reason to question that 
conclusion. The objection is OVERRULED. 
CONCLUSION 
Having reviewed the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations set 
forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation, as well as Plaintiff’s 
objections and all other relevant documents in the record, and having made a de novo 
review of the portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation  to 
which objections were specifically directed, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s 
objections and ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge 
(D.E. 88). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (D.E. 87) is DENIED. 
 ORDERED on May 14, 2026. 
 
_______________________________ 
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
Case 2:24-cv-00133     Document 98     Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD     Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight