Dwayne R. Wilson v. 2151 Kirkwood LLC

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 8 Memorandum and Recommendations. This case is remanded to the First Court of Appeals. (Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified. (jmg4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
June 05, 2024
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DWAYNE RAYSHAUN
WILSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
2151 KIRKWOOD LLC,
Defendant.

§ CIVIL ACTION NO
§ 4:24-cv-01247
§
§
§
§ JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
§
§
§
§

ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Dwayne Rayshaun Wilson, proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, removed this case from the First Court of
Appeals. Dkt 1.
Pending is a Memorandum and Recommendation by
Magistrate Judge Christina A. Bryan, recommending that
this case be remanded to state court for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. Dkt 8. Also pending are objections
filed by Wilson. Dkt 9.
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).

Upon de novo review and determination, Wilson’s
objections lack merit. The burden of establishing that
federal jurisdiction exists in a case “rests on the party
seeking the federal forum.” Howery v Allstate Insurance Co,
243 F3d 912, 916 (5th Cir 2001). Wilson has failed to meet
that burden here. The Memorandum and Recommendation
clearly details the pertinent facts and correctly applies
controlling law.
No clear error otherwise appears upon review and
consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation,
the record, and the applicable law.
The objections by Wilson to the Memorandum and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are OVERRULED.
Dkt 9.
The Memorandum and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkt 8.
This case is REMANDED to the First Court of Appeals.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on June 5, 2024, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Hon. Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge

2