Dennis Eborka v. Ismael Amaya

• Court: District Court, W.D. Texas
• Decided: October 22, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01332
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

DENNIS EBORKA, § No. 1:25-CV-1332-DAE § Plaintiff, § § vs. § § ISMAEL AMAYA, § § Defendant. § ________________________________ ORDER: (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND (2) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) (Dkt. # 5) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Mark Lane. The Court finds these matters suitable for disposition without a hearing. After reviewing the Report, the Court ADOPTS Judge Lane’s recommendations and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s causes of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). BACKGROUND Plaintiff Dennis Eborka (“Plaintiff”) purports to sue Defendant Ismael Amaya (“Defendant”) in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. (Dkt. # 1 at 3.) Plaintiff pleads that Defendant harmed Plaintiff by unlawfully withdrawing “a completed and final graded coursework,” which another University had allegedly agreed to credit to satisfy a degree requirement. (Id. at 4.) Eborka alleges that withdrawing this grade caused irreparable and considerable harm and seeks

$180,000 in damages as well as the reinstatement of the withdrawn grade. (Id.) On September 15, 2025, Judge Lane issued his Report, recommending dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiff’s cause of action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B). (Dkt. # 5.) Plaintiff filed his Objections to the Report on September 25, 2025. (Dkt. # 7.) APPLICABLE LAW The Court must conduct a de novo review of any of the Magistrate

Judge’s conclusions to which a party has specifically objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which

objection is made.”). The objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations that the party wishes to have the district court consider. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151 (1985). A district court need not consider “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general objections.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n,

834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Findings to which no specific objections are made do not require de novo review; the Court need only determine whether the Recommendation is

clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989). Furthermore, conclusory objections that fail to point out with specificity any error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis are not cognizable,” and the

Court here will not parse through the record to infer exactly what it is Plaintiff’s objections are based upon. See Palomo v. Collier, No. 2-23-CV-37, 2024 WL 180852, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2024) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); Malacara v. Garber, 353 F.3d 393, 405 (5th Cir. 2003); Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290, 293

n.7 (5th Cir. 1993)). ANALYSIS In his Report, Judge Lane determined that Plaintiff “does not allege

what legal theory he purports to bring this claim under, and liberally construing his Complaint, the undersigned cannot identify a cause of action that provides Eborka with a legal remedy based on his allegations.” (Dkt. # 5 at 3.) Accordingly, Judge Lane determined that Plaintiff’s complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or fact

and recommended that it be dismissed as frivolous. (Id.) Plaintiff’s Objections (Dkt. # 7 at 1) merely restates the brief statement of the claim that was provided in the complaint (Dkt. # 1 at 4). Plaintiff

does not object to any specific error in Judge Lane’s analysis. Plaintiff’s objections also include attachments of his academic record and screenshots from his course and Defendant. (Dkt. # 7 at 2-7.) Although Objections to the Report are not the proper vehicle for allowing parties to raise at the district court new evidence that was not presented to the magistrate judge, Cupit v. Whitley, 28 F.3d 532, 535 n.5 (Sth Cir. 1994), even consideration of such evidence does not save Plaintiff's case. The Court agrees with Judge Lane that there is no identifiable

cause of action that provides Plaintiff with a legal remedy based on his allegations. Therefore, the Court will overrule Plaintiff's objections and the Report will be adopted. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS Judge Lane’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #5) as the opinion of the Court. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's cause of action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to ENTER JUDGMENT and CLOSE THE CASE. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATE: Austin, Texas, October 22, 2025.

David Alan Ezra Senior United States District Judge