Cedric Greene and Valerie Stephen v. MV Transportation

Opinion

June 02, 2026 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

CEDRIC GREENE and § CIVIL ACTION NUMBER VALERIE STEPHEN, § 4:26-cv-02445 Plaintiffs, § § § versus § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § MV TRANSPORTATION, § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiffs Cedric Greene and Valerie Stephen proceed here pro se. They filed a petition for leave to proceed and demand relief against Defendant MV Transportation. Dkt 1. But they don’t provide information regarding the factual background of their case other than prior attempts to bring their claims before other courts in Texas, California, and Arkansas. See id at 2–12. Plaintiffs also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division. See Dkts 2 & 8. The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge Richard W. Bennett. Dkt 5. He entered a Memorandum and Recommendation in which he recommended that the petition for leave to proceed and demand relief be denied and this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Dkt 9 at 5. He further recommended that the application to proceed in forma pauperis and motion to transfer venue be denied as moot. Ibid. The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir 1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b) advisory committee note (1983). Plaintiffs filed objections. Dkt 10. On de novo review and determination, they entirely lack merit. They restate intention to transfer this action to the Brownsville Division pursuant to 28 USC §1404(c). Id at 3. But Plaintiffs nowhere identify a basis for any federal court to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over this dispute. The objections by Plaintiffs Cedric Greene and Valerie Stephen to the Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are OVERRULED. Dkt 10. No clear error otherwise appears upon review and consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation, the record, and the applicable law. The Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this Court. Dkt 9. The petition for leave to proceed and demand relief is DENIED. Dkt 1. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The application by Plaintiffs to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for transfer of venue are DENIED AS MOOT. Dkts 2 & 8. A final judgment will enter separately. SO ORDERED. Signed on _ June 01,2026 at Houston, Texas.

Honorable Charles Ebividge United States District Judge