Rotimi Owoeye v. Capital Fund I, LLC

Opinion

July 28, 2026 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

ROTIMI OWOEYE, § CIVIL ACTION NUMBER Plaintiff, § 4:26-cv-01652 § § versus § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § CAPITAL FUND I, LLC, § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Rotimi Owoeye proceeds here pro se. He filed this lawsuit seeking to enjoin Defendant Capital Fund I, LLC, from foreclosing on his property. Dkt 4 (amended complaint). The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge Dena Hanovice Palermo. Dkt 6. Pending is a motion to dismiss by Defendant. Dkt 5. It asserts that the amended complaint states no substantive causes of action or facts that could support a cause of action, thus undermining Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. Id at 2. Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion. Judge Palermo then afforded Plaintiff additional time to respond, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal for want of prosecution. Dkt 8. Plaintiff again failed to file a response or otherwise take any action in the matter. Judge Palermo recommends that the action be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for want of prosecution. Dkt 9. She further recommends that dismissal be with prejudice, given Plaintiff’s “clear record of delay” by failing to respond despite court order to do so. Id at 3–6. The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC §636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir 1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b) advisory committee note (1983). None of the parties filed objections. No clear error otherwise appears upon review and consideration of the Report and Recommendation, the record, and the applicable law. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this Court. Dkt 9. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The motion to dismiss by Capital Fund I, LLC, is DENIED AS MOOT. Dkt 5. A final judgment will issue by separate order. SO ORDERED. Signed on _ July 27, 2026 _, at Houston, Texas.

URE. Honorable Charles Eskridge United States District Judge