Emmanuel Adeyinka v. Texas Health and Human Services

S.D. Texas

Emmanuel Adeyinka v. Texas Health and Human Services

DecidedNovember 18, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-00689

StatusUnknown

This text of Emmanuel Adeyinka v. Texas Health and Human Services (Emmanuel Adeyinka v. Texas Health and Human Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Emmanuel Adeyinka v. Texas Health and Human Services, (S.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

November 21, 2025 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

EMMANUEL ADEYINKA, § CIVIL ACTION NO Plaintiff, § 4:25-cv-00689 § § vs. § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § TEXAS HEALTH AND §

HUMAN SERVICES, § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Emmanuel Adeyinka proceeds here pro se. He filed a complaint asserting violations of Texas Government Code Chapter 551 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Dkt 3 at 2. Plaintiff also brings claims for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id at 1–3. The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge Richard Bennett. Dkt 8. Judge Bennett set an initial conference for June 27, 2025. Dkt 9. Plaintiff failed to appear. Dkt 12. Plaintiff was then ordered to, within ten days, show cause as to why he failed to appear, why the parties failed to submit a joint case management plan, and why the action should not be dismissed. Dkt 13 at 1–2. Plaintiff failed to respond. Judge Bennett then issued a Memorandum and Recommendation in which he recommended that the claims by Plaintiff be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with prior order. Dkt 15 at 3. 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 308, 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). No party filed objections. No clear error 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 15. The claims by Plaintiff Emmanuel Adeyinka asserted against Defendant Texas Health and Human Services are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The motions by Defendant to dismiss and to stay discovery are DENIED AS MOOT. Dkts 11 & 14. This is a FINAL JUDGMENT. SO ORDERED. Signed on November 18, 2025, at Houston, Texas. ( (LE: Eskridge United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

November 21, 2025 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

EMMANUEL ADEYINKA, § CIVIL ACTION NO Plaintiff, § 4:25-cv-00689 § § vs. § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § TEXAS HEALTH AND §

HUMAN SERVICES, § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Emmanuel Adeyinka proceeds here pro se. He filed a complaint asserting violations of Texas Government Code Chapter 551 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Dkt 3 at 2. Plaintiff also brings claims for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id at 1–3. The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge Richard Bennett. Dkt 8. Judge Bennett set an initial conference for June 27, 2025. Dkt 9. Plaintiff failed to appear. Dkt 12. Plaintiff was then ordered to, within ten days, show cause as to why he failed to appear, why the parties failed to submit a joint case management plan, and why the action should not be dismissed. Dkt 13 at 1–2. Plaintiff failed to respond. Judge Bennett then issued a Memorandum and Recommendation in which he recommended that the claims by Plaintiff be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with prior order. Dkt 15 at 3. 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 308, 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). No party filed objections. No clear error 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 15. The claims by Plaintiff Emmanuel Adeyinka asserted against Defendant Texas Health and Human Services are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The motions by Defendant to dismiss and to stay discovery are DENIED AS MOOT. Dkts 11 & 14. This is a FINAL JUDGMENT. SO ORDERED. Signed on November 18, 2025, at Houston, Texas. ( (LE: Eskridge United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Emmanuel Adeyinka v. Texas Health and Human Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emmanuel-adeyinka-v-texas-health-and-human-services-txsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack