Helaire v. Villarreal et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
NAMEAH HELAIRE,
Plaintiff,
versus
ANTONIO VILLAREAL,
et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-03547
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Nameah Helaire proceeds here pro se. She
brings claims for various violations of her civil rights under
42 USC §1983. See Dkt 1 at 4. The matter was referred for
disposition to Magistrate Judge Yvonne Ho. Dkt 4.
Pending is a motion by Defendant Antonio Villareal to
dismiss the claims against him based on qualified
immunity and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. See Dkt 12 at 4–7. Plaintiff failed to respond to
the motion. Prior order adopted a Memorandum and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge recommending
that the claims against certain unserved Defendants be
dismissed without prejudice. See Dkt 37; see also Dkt 25
(Memorandum and Recommendation).
Judge Ho recommends that the motion to dismiss be
granted and that all claims against Villareal be dismissed
with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) and 28 USC
§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). See Dkt 41 at 15. She notes that Plaintiff
failed to respond to the motion and thus failed to rebut the
asserted defense of qualified immunity. Id at 6–7. She also
determined that Defendant is entitled to qualified
immunity as to Plaintiff’s false arrest claims, such claims
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 04, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03547 Document 42 Filed 06/03/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
are also time-barred, and the complaint otherwise fails to
state plausible claims against Villareal under federal or
state law. See id at 7–15.
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).
No party filed objections. No clear error appears upon
review and consideration of the Memorandum and
Recommendation, the record, and the applicable law.
The Memorandum and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkt 41.
The motion by Defendant Antonio Villareal to dismiss
is GRANTED. Dkt 12.
All claims against Defendant Antonio Villareal are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Amtaro Montoya
and Angel August continue.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
June 03, 2026
Case 4:25-cv-03547 Document 42 Filed 06/03/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2