Nameah Helaire v. Breahna McKinney and Pine Wood Apartments

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: December 23, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00793
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION NAMEAH HELAIRE, § § Plaintiff, § v. § CASE NO. 2:25-CV-00793-JRG-RSP BREAHNA MCKINNEY and PINE § WOOD APARTMENTS, § § Defendants. § ORDER Breahna McKinney and Pine Wood Apartments (“Defendants”) previously filed a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) (“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 6.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 12), recommending grant of Defendants’ Motion. Nameah Helaire (“Plaintiff”) has now filed untimely Objections. (Dkt. No. 13.) After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the Motion, the Report and Recommendation, and the briefing on Plaintiff’s untimely Objections, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Report and Recommendation and concludes that the Objections fail to show that the Report and Recommendation was erroneous. Consequently, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections as both untimely and without merit and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and orders that the Motion (Dkt. No. 6) is GRANTED. However, because a pro se plaintiff should be allowed to amend before dismissal, see Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767–68 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (citation omitted), the Court finds it is appropriate to GRANT Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint. However, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, filed at Dkt. No. 14, is STRUCK under Rule 15(a)(1)(B). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff has leave to amend her complaint within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 23rd day of December, 2025.

RODNEY GILSYTRAP \ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE