Sidney Maurice Thompson v. Facebook Meta, et al.

S.D. Texas

Sidney Maurice Thompson v. Facebook Meta, et al.

DecidedNovember 19, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00263

StatusUnknown

This text of Sidney Maurice Thompson v. Facebook Meta, et al. (Sidney Maurice Thompson v. Facebook Meta, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sidney Maurice Thompson v. Facebook Meta, et al., (S.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT November 19, 2025 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

SIDNEY MAURICE THOMPSON, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00263 § FACEBOOK META, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS CASE

On October 15, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued his “Memorandum and Recommendation to Dismiss Case” (D.E. 8), recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, alternatively, that it be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous. The Magistrate Judge also recommends that this action count as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff was provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been timely filed. When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)). Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation (D.E. 8), and all other relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. The Court ORDERS that this dismissal counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and INSTRUCTS the Clerk of Court to send notice of this dismissal to the Manager of the Three Strikes List for the Southern District of Texas at Three_Strikes @txs.uscourts.gov. ORDERED on November 19, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT November 19, 2025 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

SIDNEY MAURICE THOMPSON, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00263 § FACEBOOK META, et al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS CASE

On October 15, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued his “Memorandum and Recommendation to Dismiss Case” (D.E. 8), recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, alternatively, that it be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous. The Magistrate Judge also recommends that this action count as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff was provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); General Order No. 2002-13. No objections have been timely filed. When no timely objection to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Indus., Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)). Having reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s memorandum and recommendation (D.E. 8), and all other relevant documents in the record, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. The Court ORDERS that this dismissal counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and INSTRUCTS the Clerk of Court to send notice of this dismissal to the Manager of the Three Strikes List for the Southern District of Texas at Three_Strikes @txs.uscourts.gov. ORDERED on November 19, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sidney Maurice Thompson v. Facebook Meta, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sidney-maurice-thompson-v-facebook-meta-et-al-txsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack