Dylan Ford v. Rodneyse Bichotte-Hermelyn, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
• Decided: May 6, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-00481
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

May 06, 2026 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BROWNSVILLE DIVISION

DYLAN FORD, § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-481 § RODNEYSE BICHOTTE- § HERMELYN, et al., § Defendants. §

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Plaintiff Dylan Ford’s untitled complaint (Ford’s “Complaint”). Dkt. No. 1. For the reasons discussed below, it is recommended that the Court: (1) DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Ford’s Complaint; and (2) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 On April 30, 2026, Ford, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, commenced this action by filing his Complaint. Dkt. No. 1. In his Complaint, Ford merely states that “Brian Gotlieb and Joy Campanelli obstructed justice[]” and that “Rodneyse Bichotte- Hermelyn participated in the process[]”. Id. at 1. As for requested relief, Ford states it to be “[t]he compensation amount is to be decided by the jury.” Id. II. LEGAL STANDARD A. Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) The Court may dismiss, sua sponte, a complaint filed in forma pauperis if, at any time, the Court determines that the action is: (i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Amrhein v. United States, 740 Fed.Appx. 65, 66 (5th Cir. 2018).

A complaint must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The claim must be facially plausible and “plead factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Before dismissing a pro se litigant’s case for failure to state a claim, a district court ordinarily must give the litigant an opportunity to amend his complaint to remedy the deficiencies.” Graves v. Cain, 734 Fed.Appx. 914, 915 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994)). The report and recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge provides sufficient notice of the Court’s intent to dismiss, and the 14-day objections period provides time for a response. Alexander v. Trump, 753 Fed.Appx. 201,

208 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing Magouirk v. Phillips, 144 F.3d 348, 359 (5th Cir. 1998)). A pleading by a pro se litigant is liberally construed under a less stringent standard of review than a formal pleading drafted by a lawyer. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Nevertheless, a pro se filing must still “abide by the rules that govern the federal courts.” E.E.O.C. v. Simbaki, Ltd., 767 F.3d 475, 484 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Frazier v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 541 Fed.Appx. 419, 421 (5th Cir. 2013)). If a claim lacks “an v. Garner, 69 F.3d 22, 25 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting Nietzke v. Williams, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831–32 (1989)).

III. DISCUSSION Even under a liberal standard, Ford’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Ford’s nearly bare Complaint contains no facts as to what Defendants have allegedly done, or how. See Dkt. No. 1. In his Complaint, Ford does not

state any basis upon which the Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate his claims; he cites to no state law, federal statute, constitutional provision, or treaty under which he seeks relief. Id. It is not clear from the Complaint how: (1) the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this case; (2) the Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants; or (3) venue is proper in this Court. Without more, the Court has no choice but to recommend dismissal of Ford’s Complaint as it fails to set forth any claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

IV. RECOMMENDATION For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Court: (1) DISMISS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE Ford’s Complaint [Dkt. No. 1]; and (2) DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case. Vv. NOTICE TO PARTIES A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within fourteen days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been served with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).

SIGNED on this 6th day of May, 2026, at Brownsville, Texas.

Igwacio/Torteya, III UnitedjStates Magistrate Judge

4/4