IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

SANDRA PRUDHOMME,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE MEDICAL CENTER OF 

SOUTHEAST TEXAS,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-149-MJT-CLS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules of Court for the Assignment of Duties to 

United States Magistrate Judges, the district court referred this proceeding to the undersigned 

United States magistrate judge to conduct all pretrial proceedings, to enter findings of fact and 

recommend disposition on case-dispositive matters, and to determine non-dispositive matters. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); E.D. TEX. CIV. R. 72. 

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed her complaint on April 14, 2023, 

alleging employment discrimination. (Doc. #1.) However, the claims in this suit were the subject 

matter of Civil Action No. 1:23-CV-13 [hereinafter “Arbitration Case”], filed by Plaintiff’s former 

employer, Steward Healthcare Systems LLC (“Steward”,) as a petition to confirm an arbitration 

award. (Arbitration Case Doc. #1.) The relevant background is as follows: 

On March 16, 2021, Sandra Prudhomme (Respondent in the Arbitration Case), proceeding 

pro se, initiated arbitration of her claims under Title VII and the Texas Labor Code for retaliation 

and discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, and age discrimination against 

Steward pursuant to the parties’ Arbitration Agreement. (Arbitration Case Doc. #1-1 at 3, ¶ 8.) 

The arbitrator’s amended scheduling order set this matter for a final arbitration hearing to take 

Case 1:23-cv-00149-MJT-CLS Document 5 Filed 06/05/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 32
place on January 26-28, 2022. (Arbitration Case Doc. #1-1 at 4.) The amended scheduling order 

also allowed Steward to file its Motion for Summary Disposition on December 10, 2021. 

(Arbitration Case Doc. #1-1 at 4.) The arbitrator granted Steward’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition, canceled the arbitration and issued a final award that Prudhomme take nothing and 

her substantive and procedural claims be dismissed with prejudice, finding that Prudhomme’s 

claims were not supported by competent summary disposition evidence. (Arbitration Case Doc. 

#1-1 at 9.) 

On January 9, 2023, Steward filed a Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award under 

9 U.S.C. § 9. (Arbitration Case Doc. #1.) On May 19, 2023, after receiving an answer (arbitration 

case doc. #4) to the petition from Plaintiff indicating her opposition and conducting a hearing on 

the matter, Steward’s petition was granted, the arbitration award was confirmed, the arbitrator’s 

order was comprehensively adopted and confirmed by the court, and a final judgment was entered. 

(Arbitration Case Docs. #13, 14.) 

As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (doc. #4), the court has the right to 

screen Plaintiff’s complaint and must dismiss her claims if the court determines that she has failed 

to state a claim on which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff’s claims here, in

Civil Action No. 1:23-CV-149, are the same as those raised in the arbitration and were fully heard 

and adjudicated in the arbitration proceeding, and the order and findings from that proceeding were

adopted and confirmed by this court in a final judgment. Thus, Plaintiff’s claims in this suit are 

barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, which precludes the relitigation 

of issues that were actually adjudicated and essential to the judgment in prior litigation involving 

a party to the first case. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980); see also Johnson v. United 

States, 576 F.2d 606, 614 (5th Cir. 1978) (“[U]nder federal principles a party who has had a full 

Case 1:23-cv-00149-MJT-CLS Document 5 Filed 06/05/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 33
and fair opportunity to litigate an issue decided in a prior suit may be precluded from litigating 

that issue in a subsequent action.”) (citations omitted). Accordingly, this suit must be dismissed 

with prejudice. 

Recommendation

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s suit be dismissed 

with prejudice. 

Objections

Within fourteen (14) days after service of the magistrate judge’s report, any party must 

serve and file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate 

judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding 

or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the 

place in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed determination is 

found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

magistrate judge is not specific.

Failure to file specific, written objections will bar the party from appealing the unobjectedto factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted by the district 

court, except upon grounds of plain error, provided that the party has been served with notice that 

such consequences will result from a failure to object. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 

79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). 

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 5th day of June, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00149-MJT-CLS Document 5 Filed 06/05/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 34