Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Lee v. Paussi — Court dismisses several injury claims on partial summary judgment

Reported / Citable

Case
Jason Lee v. Charles Arthur Paussi, et al.
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division
Judge
Jeremy D. Kernodle
Date Decided
October 13, 2026
Docket No.
6:25-cv-00237-JDK-KNM
Topics
Personal injury; Trucking; Summary judgment; Negligence

Background

Jason Lee brought a personal-injury action against commercial driver Charles Arthur Paussi and Paussi’s employer, Western Flyer Express, LLC. The case was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell under 28 U.S.C. § 636.

The defendants moved for partial summary judgment on Lee’s negligence-per-se claim against Paussi; ordinary-negligence claim against Western Flyer; gross-negligence claims against both defendants; and malice claims against both defendants. Judge Mitchell recommended granting the motion. No party filed written objections to that recommendation.

The Court’s Holding

District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment.

Because no objections were filed, the court reviewed the magistrate judge’s factual findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and legal conclusions for whether they were contrary to law. Finding no error, abuse of discretion, or conclusion contrary to law, the court dismissed the specified claims with prejudice.

Key Takeaways

  • The negligence-per-se claim against Paussi was dismissed with prejudice.
  • The ordinary-negligence claim against Western Flyer Express was dismissed with prejudice.
  • The gross-negligence and malice claims against both defendants were dismissed with prejudice.

Why It Matters

The order narrows Lee’s personal-injury case by permanently eliminating the claims addressed in the partial-summary-judgment motion. The ruling followed adoption of an unopposed magistrate judge recommendation, rather than an independently detailed merits analysis in the district court’s order.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top