IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

SANDRA PRUDHOMME,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEWARD HEALTHCARE THE 

MEDICAL CENTER OF SOUTHEAST 

TEXAS,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

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

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL

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

alleging employment discrimination against the Defendant, her former employer. [Dkt. 1]. The 

Court referred this matter to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United States Magistrate Judge, 

for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court. On June 5, 2023, the 

Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation [Dkt. 5] in which she recommended 

dismissing the instant case under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, as Plaintiff had already 

litigated her case in arbitration. Plaintiff timely filed objections on June 15, 2023. [Dkt. 7].

A party who timely files specific, 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). 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. Frivolous, 

conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Nettles v. 

Case 1:23-cv-00149-MJT-CLS Document 9 Filed 07/10/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 41
2

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 1412 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Plaintiff’s objection is without merit. Plaintiff states she is objecting to the ruling 

dismissing her case and then asserts that the arbitrator’s award must be vacated because the 

arbitrator failed to conduct the hearing. As the Magistrate Judge pointed out, however, the claims 

raised in this action are the exact claims that were presented in arbitration and were the subject of 

the arbitrator’s final award which was confirmed as a final judgment by this Court in Civil Action 

No. 1:23-CV-13, Steward Healthcare Systems, LLC. v. Sandra Prudhomme. Plaintiff’s objection 

that the arbitrator granted summary judgment and did not conduct the arbitration hearing has

already been considered and dismissed by this Court. Thus, Plaintiff’s claims in this suit are barred 

by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, which precludes relitigating 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 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). Therefore, Plaintiff’s “objection” is overruled. 

Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the United States Magistrate 

Judge are correct. The Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [Dkt. 

5] is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the Magistrate 

Judge’s recommendation.

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 10th day of July, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00149-MJT-CLS Document 9 Filed 07/10/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 42