Lakeshia Rashawn Edmond v. Donald Trump, Sr., et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: October 28, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-01058
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

LAKESHIA RASHAWN EDMOND, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-1058-RWS-JBB § DONALD TRUMP, SR., et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER Plaintiff LaKeshia Rashawn Edmond, proceeding pro se, filed this above-captioned case on September 26, 2025. Docket No. 1. The above-captioned case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On September 30, 2025, the Magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 4), recommending Plaintiff’s case be dismissed sua sponte for want of jurisdiction and frivolousness. Docket No. 4 at 1 (noting the Northern District of Texas previously found the Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and ordered her to seek leave of court before filing any complaints in that district) (citing Edmond, et al. v. Winstead PC Law firm, et al., 4:24-cv-00829-P, Docket. No. 5 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 4, 2024). Noting Plaintiff had filed five lawsuits in this District in a twenty-day period—all with ties to the Northern District of Texas,1 the Magistrate Judge further recommended the Court bar Plaintiff from filing subsequent complaints in this District without court permission. Id. at 1, 8. Plaintiff received the

1 See 4:25-cv-00981-SDJ-AGD (September 18, 2025 Order transferring case to the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division); 4:25-cv-01010-ALM-AGD (September 18, 2025 Order transferring case to the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division); 4:25-cv-01018-RWS- JBB (September 22, 2025 Order transferring case to the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division); 4:25-cv-01019-SDJ-BD (September 18, 2025 Order transferring case to the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division). Report and Recommendation on October 3, 2025. Docket No. 5. As of this date, no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. Because no objections have been filed, any aggrieved party is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and

recommendations. Moreover, except upon grounds of plain error, an aggrieved party is barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Texas, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017); Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, Case No. 4:21-CV-00203-RAS, 2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021). The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Accordingly,

it is ORDERED that the above-captioned case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of jurisdiction and frivolousness. It is further ORDERED that any further complaints filed by Plaintiff in this District must be accompanied with a motion for leave, will be opened as a miscellaneous proceeding subject to a judge’s review, and will be subjected to screening for frivolousness and jurisdictional issues in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 28th day of October, 2025.

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3