Sam v. Easy Honda et al the clerk's office is not to accept any filings until the motion to dismiss is ruled on.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JOSEPH-JERREL SAM,
Plaintiff,
versus
EASY HONDA, et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-2988
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Joseph-Jerrel Sam proceeds here pro se. He
brings numerous claims under federal and state law
against Defendants Easy Honda and Exeter Finance LLC,
for what he characterizes as a “fraudulent automobile sales
and financing transaction.” Dkt 42 at ¶1. Defendants
moved to dismiss all claims under Rule 12(b)(6). Dkts 47
& 49.
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Dena Hanovice Palermo. Dkt 7. She issued a Report
and Recommendation recommending that the motions to
dismiss be granted and that all claims against Defendants
be dismissed with prejudice. Dkt 78 at 17. She further
recommends that all other pending motions by denied as
moot. Ibid.
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
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 02, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-02988 Document 84 Filed 06/01/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
Plaintiff filed objections. Dkt 82. Among other things,
he claims that the Magistrate Judge committed legal error
by characterizing this action as a “vehicle-repossession
case,” applying the wrong legal standard for forgery claims,
and determining that each count in the first amended
complaint failed to plausibly state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6).
Upon de novo review and determination, Plaintiff’s
objections wholly lack merit. He objects to the
recommendation characterizing this matter as a “vehicle-
repossession case,” asserting that such characterization is
“contradicted by the docket” and resulted in “substantive
error” by purportedly disregarding record evidence. Dkt 82
at 9. To the contrary, the well-reasoned Report and
Recommendation carefully articulates why each of the
legal theories advanced by Plaintiff lack any legal merit
and must thus be dismissed. Dkt 78 at 6–17. Nor do the
objections otherwise demonstrate any legal error on the
part of the Magistrate Judge.
The objections by Plaintiff to the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are OVERRULED.
Dkt 82.
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 78.
The motion by Defendant Exeter Finance LLC, to
dismiss is GRANTED. Dkt 47.
The motion by Defendant Easy Honda to dismiss is
GRANTED. Dkt 49.
The request by Plaintiff to further amend his complaint
is DENIED. See Dkt 82 at 17. Further amendment would be
futile.
Case 4:25-cv-02988 Document 84 Filed 06/01/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
All claims by Plaintiff Joseph-Jerrel Sam are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
All other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
A final judgment will enter separately.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
__________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
June 01, 2026
Case 4:25-cv-02988 Document 84 Filed 06/01/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3