Lee vs Paussi, et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
JASON LEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLES ARTHUR PAUSSI, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 6:25-cv-237-JDK-KNM
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Jason Lee brings this personal injury lawsuit against Defendants
Charles Arthur Paussi, a commercial driver, and Western Flyer Express, LLC,
Paussi’s employer. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K.
Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to
Plaintiff’s claims for negligence per se against Defendant Paussi, ordinary negligence
against Defendant Western Flyer Express, gross negligence against both Defendants,
and malice against both Defendants. Docket No. 36. On August 3, 2026, Judge
Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Defendants’
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment be granted. Docket No. 56. No written
objections have been filed.
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de
novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and
Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court
Case 6:25-cv-00237-JDK-KNM Document 64 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law.
Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs., LLC, 875 F.3d 243, 249 (5th Cir. 2017).
Here, no objections have been filed. The Court therefore reviews the
Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews the legal
conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v.
Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that, if no objections to a
Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous,
abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
Having reviewed Judge Mitchell’s Report and the record in this case, the Court
finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 56) as the findings of this Court.
Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No. 36) is GRANTED,
and Plaintiff’s claims for negligence per se against Defendant Paussi, ordinary
negligence against Defendant Western Flyer Express, gross negligence against both
Defendants, and malice against both Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13th	October, 2026.
Case 6:25-cv-00237-JDK-KNM Document 64 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>