Zak Shaik v. Imperium AI, et al.

District Court, N.D. Texas·Decided July 31, 2026·No. 4:25-cv-00688·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION

ZAK SHAIK,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 4:25-cv-00688-P

IMPERIUM AI, ET AL.,

Defendants. ORDER & FINAL JUDGMENT

The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation in this case. ECF No. 58. No objections were filed, and the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is ripe for review. The District Judge reviewed the proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the undersigned District Judge believes that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. The Court therefore ORDERS that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 53) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claims under RICO and § 1981. Those claims are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.1 Additionally, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims against Defendants. Thus, the Court hereby DISMISSES these claims without prejudice.

1 Plaintiff has been given an opportunity to file an amended complaint. The Court thus finds that any further amendment would be futile as Plaintiff has already pleaded his best case. See Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 768 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (quoting Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam)); Clements v. Bank, No. 6:20-CV-00821, 2021 WL 4483829, at *3 (W.D. La. Sept. 29, 2021) (“Since [Plaintiff] has previously been granted leave to amend his complaint to cure these defects, the Court concludes that any further attempt to an amendment would be futile.”). Furthermore, there is no proof of service for the eight individual Defendants named in the above-captioned case. Accordingly, these Defendants are DISMISSED for want of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). This is a final judgment for appellate purposes. SO ORDERED on this 31st day of July 2026.

Mark T. Pittman UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

Zak Shaik v. Imperium AI, et al., (N.D. Tex. 2026).

Zak Shaik v. Imperium AI, et al. (Zak Shaik v. Imperium AI, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bazrowx v. Scott
136 F.3d 1053 (Fifth Circuit, 1998)
Brewster v. Dretke
587 F.3d 764 (Fifth Circuit, 2009)