Isom v. Department of Homeland Security

E.D. Texas

Isom v. Department of Homeland Security

DecidedJune 2, 2021

Docket4:20-cv-00948

StatusUnknown

This text of Isom v. Department of Homeland Security (Isom v. Department of Homeland Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Isom v. Department of Homeland Security, (E.D. Tex. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

TYESHA N. ISOM § § v. § CIVIL NO. 4:20-CV-948-SDJ § DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND § SECURITY, ET AL. § §

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Came on for consideration the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), this matter having been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On April 28, 2021, the Report of the Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. #5), was entered containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that pro se Plaintiff Tyesha N. Isom’s (1) claims be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (Dkt. #3), be denied. Having assessed the Report and considered Isom’s Objections, (Dkt. #6), the Court determines that the Magistrate Judge’s Report should be adopted. A party who files timely written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is entitled to a de novo review of those findings or recommendations to which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2)–(3). Isom filed her Complaint on December 11, 2020, asserting unspecified claims against various government agencies. (Dkt. #3). On April 28, 2021, the Magistrate Judge sua sponte recommended Isom’s claims be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. #5). On May 2020, Isom filed Objections. (Dkt. #6). Isom does not assert any specific legal objections. Rather, her filing further demonstrates that dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is

warranted. There is no plausible foundation for Isom’s allegations. See Carmichael v. United Techs. Corp., 835 F.2d 109, 114 (5th Cir. 1988). Without any discernable “federal question suitable for decision,” Isom’s case must be dismissed without prejudice. See Vasaturo v. Peterka, 203 F. Supp. 3d 42, 44 (D.D.C. 2016). Isom’s Objections, (Dkt. #6), are overruled. CONCLUSION It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff Tyesha N. Isom’s claims are

DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff Tyesha N. Isom’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (Dkt. #3), is DENIED.

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

TYESHA N. ISOM § § v. § CIVIL NO. 4:20-CV-948-SDJ § DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND § SECURITY, ET AL. § §

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Came on for consideration the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), this matter having been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On April 28, 2021, the Report of the Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. #5), was entered containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that pro se Plaintiff Tyesha N. Isom’s (1) claims be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (Dkt. #3), be denied. Having assessed the Report and considered Isom’s Objections, (Dkt. #6), the Court determines that the Magistrate Judge’s Report should be adopted. A party who files timely written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is entitled to a de novo review of those findings or recommendations to which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2)–(3). Isom filed her Complaint on December 11, 2020, asserting unspecified claims against various government agencies. (Dkt. #3). On April 28, 2021, the Magistrate Judge sua sponte recommended Isom’s claims be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. #5). On May 2020, Isom filed Objections. (Dkt. #6). Isom does not assert any specific legal objections. Rather, her filing further demonstrates that dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is

warranted. There is no plausible foundation for Isom’s allegations. See Carmichael v. United Techs. Corp., 835 F.2d 109, 114 (5th Cir. 1988). Without any discernable “federal question suitable for decision,” Isom’s case must be dismissed without prejudice. See Vasaturo v. Peterka, 203 F. Supp. 3d 42, 44 (D.D.C. 2016). Isom’s Objections, (Dkt. #6), are overruled. CONCLUSION It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff Tyesha N. Isom’s claims are

DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff Tyesha N. Isom’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (Dkt. #3), is DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Isom v. Department of Homeland Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isom-v-department-of-homeland-security-txed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack