Olamide Olatayo Bello v. United States Department of Government Efficiency

E.D. Texas

Olamide Olatayo Bello v. United States Department of Government Efficiency

DecidedOctober 28, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-00841

StatusUnknown

This text of Olamide Olatayo Bello v. United States Department of Government Efficiency (Olamide Olatayo Bello v. United States Department of Government Efficiency) 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

Olamide Olatayo Bello v. United States Department of Government Efficiency, (E.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 4:25-cv-00841 Olamide Olatayo Bello, Petitioner, V. United States Department of Government Efficiency, Respondent.

ORDER Petitioner Olamide Olatayo Bello filed this petition for a writ of mandamus against the United States Department of Govern- ment Efficiency (DOGE). Doc. 1 at 1. This case was referred to a magistrate judge, Doc. 2, who issued a report recommending that the petition be denied. Doc. 6 at 3. Petitioner filed written objec- tions. Doc. 7. The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). In conducting a de novo review, the court examines the entire record and makes an inde- pendent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). Petitioner objects that the magistrate judge “was wrong” in concluding that his goal here is to challenge his prosecution, con- viction, and sentence because, even without the criminal prosecu- tion, he has been harmed by the respondent. Doc. 7 at 2. But the law is clear that there is no private cause of action against DOGE that Bello can avail himself of here. Exec. Order No. 14158, 90 Fed. Reg. 8441. Furthermore, Bello has failed to demonstrate the lack of any other adequate remedy. “Mandamus cannot be used as a substitute for appeal... .” In re Willy, 831 F.2d 545, 549 (5th Cir. 1987). Bello has not shown that he has a clear right to relief,

-l-

that any duty is owed to him, and that he lacks any other adequate remedy at law. Thus, the magistrate judge correctly concluded that the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. Accord- ingly, petitioner’s objections lack merit. Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report de novo and finding no error, the court accepts its findings and recommenda- tions. The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. Any pending motions are denied as moot. So ordered by the court on October 28, 2025.

J! CAMPBELL BARKER United States District Judge

-2-

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 4:25-cv-00841 Olamide Olatayo Bello, Petitioner, V. United States Department of Government Efficiency, Respondent.

ORDER Petitioner Olamide Olatayo Bello filed this petition for a writ of mandamus against the United States Department of Govern- ment Efficiency (DOGE). Doc. 1 at 1. This case was referred to a magistrate judge, Doc. 2, who issued a report recommending that the petition be denied. Doc. 6 at 3. Petitioner filed written objec- tions. Doc. 7. The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). In conducting a de novo review, the court examines the entire record and makes an inde- pendent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). Petitioner objects that the magistrate judge “was wrong” in concluding that his goal here is to challenge his prosecution, con- viction, and sentence because, even without the criminal prosecu- tion, he has been harmed by the respondent. Doc. 7 at 2. But the law is clear that there is no private cause of action against DOGE that Bello can avail himself of here. Exec. Order No. 14158, 90 Fed. Reg. 8441. Furthermore, Bello has failed to demonstrate the lack of any other adequate remedy. “Mandamus cannot be used as a substitute for appeal... .” In re Willy, 831 F.2d 545, 549 (5th Cir. 1987). Bello has not shown that he has a clear right to relief,

-l-

that any duty is owed to him, and that he lacks any other adequate remedy at law. Thus, the magistrate judge correctly concluded that the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. Accord- ingly, petitioner’s objections lack merit. Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report de novo and finding no error, the court accepts its findings and recommenda- tions. The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. Any pending motions are denied as moot. So ordered by the court on October 28, 2025.

J! CAMPBELL BARKER United States District Judge

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Olamide Olatayo Bello v. United States Department of Government Efficiency, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olamide-olatayo-bello-v-united-states-department-of-government-efficiency-txed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack