Jahaua Joseph v. Trey Wood, in his official capacity as Chief Financial Officer of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION

JAHAUA JOSEPH,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 4:25-cv-00668-P

TREY WOOD, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF THE TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,

Defendant. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE On October 9, 2025, the United States Magistrate Judge issued Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation (“FCR”) in this case. ECF No. 23. The FCR recommended the Court sua sponte dismiss this case with prejudice for being frivolous as well as for failing to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Id. at 4. Plaintiff filed an Objection to the FCR on October 23, 2025. ECF No. 24. The Court accordingly conducted a de novo review of the FCR. As detailed below, the Court will ACCEPT and ADOPT the reasoning in the Magistrate Judge’s FCR and OVERRULE Plaintiff’s Objections. Plaintiff raises the following objections to the Magistrate Judge’s FCR: • Mischaracterization of Factual Allegations as “Fanciful.” • Failure to Recognize Federal Question Jurisdiction. • Improper Dismissal With Prejudice. • Erroneous Application of IFP Screening Standards. The Court OVERRULES these objections because, just as the Magistrate Judge recognized regarding Plaintiffs Original, First, and Second Amended Complaints, all of Plaintiffs objections are frivolous and “clearly baseless, a category encompassing allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-38 (1992) internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Because Plaintiff appears pro se, his pleadings are entitled to a more liberal construction than those prepared by attorneys. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Here, however, Plaintiff has already had the opportunity to file three separate complaints and no amount of liberal construction can create a viable legal claim. Thus, having conducted a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s FCR, and Plaintiff's Objection, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the reasoning in the Magistrate Judge’s FCR, and OVERRULES Plaintiffs Objections. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for being frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. SO ORDERED on this 24th day of October 2025. Whe 7. Veet MARK T. PITTMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE