Ramirez v. Marquez et al

1 / 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
MARIO ALBERTO RAMIREZ,
Plaintiff,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:26-CV-00163
YOLANDA MARQUEZ, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On June 26, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock issued his
Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R), recommending that the Court dismiss
Plaintiff Mario Alberto Ramirez’s lawsuit without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. D.E. 6. Plaintiff was provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to,
the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). He timely filed
his objections on July 7, 2026. D.E. 9.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A district court must review de novo any portion of a magistrate judge’s proposed
findings and recommendations on dispositive matters to which the parties have filed
specific, written objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Objections must point out with sufficient
particularity any alleged error in the magistrate judge’s analysis; otherwise, they do not
constitute proper objections and will not be considered. Id. After considering proper
objections, the district court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, those
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
August 03, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:26-cv-00163 Document 10 Filed 08/03/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2 / 3
portions of the proposed findings and recommendations. Id. As to any portion for which
no objection is filed, a district court reviews for clearly erroneous factual findings and
conclusions of law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per
curiam).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s claim was based on the violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, a statute that
criminalizes mail fraud. The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because this statute does not support a private right of action under
federal law. D.E. 6, pp. 2-3. In his objection, Plaintiff fails to point out any error in the
M&R. Therefore, any objection to the basis for dismissal is OVERRULED.
Plaintiff does offer a few additional facts, and makes new conclusory claims that
there is a civil conspiracy between Yolanda Marquez, Jeffery Feldbrand Kane, and Kim A.
Cox and a RICO violation in light of the defendants’ continuing illegal activity. D.E. 9.
Plaintiff may not raise new claims for the first time in objections to an M&R. Finley v.
Johnson, 243 F.3d 215, 219 n.3 (5th Cir. 2001). For this reason, the Court need not consider
Plaintiff’s new claims and allegations.
CONCLUSION
Having reviewed the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations set
forth in the Magistrate Judge’s M&R, as well as Plaintiff’s objection and all other relevant
documents in the record, and having made a de novo review of the portions of the
Magistrate Judge’s M&R to which the objection was specifically directed, the Court
Case 2:26-cv-00163 Document 10 Filed 08/03/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3 / 3
OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objection and ADOPTS as its own the findings and conclusions
of the Magistrate Judge (D.E. 6). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
ORDERED on August 3, 2026.
_______________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-00163 Document 10 Filed 08/03/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3