Williams v. Missouri City Municipal Court et alCase remanded to the Municipal Court of Missouri City, Texas.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
FIELD-DEWAYNE
WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
versus
MISSOURI CITY MUNICIPAL
COURT, et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-03869
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Field-Dewayne Williams proceeds here pro se.
He was charged with failure to identify to a police officer in
the Municipal Court of Missouri City, Texas. See Dkt 9-1
(criminal complaint). He attempts to remove that matter to
federal court. See Dkt 1 (notice of removal). The matter was
referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge Richard
Bennett. Dkt 5.
Defendant Missouri City Municipal Court moved to
remand, arguing that removal was improper and that
subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking. Dkt 9 at 4–6. Judge
Bennett entered a Memorandum and Recommendation
recommending that the motion be granted. Dkt 11. He
found that the notice of removal didn’t present grounds
under 28 USC §1455 for removal of this action to federal
court. Id at 2–5.
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
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 16, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03869 Document 40 Filed 03/16/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
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).
Plaintiff filed objections. Dkt 31. On de novo review and
determination, they are scattershot and entirely lack
merit. Plaintiff largely rehashes the factual background of
the underlying criminal matter. See id at 2–4. He nowhere
presents proper grounds for subject-matter jurisdiction to
exist in federal court.
The objections by Plaintiff Field-Dewayne Williams to
the Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge are OVERRULED. Dkt 31.
No clear error otherwise 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 30.
The motion by Defendant Missouri City Municipal
Court to remand is GRANTED. Dkt 9.
Any other pending motions or requests for relief are
DENIED AS MOOT. For example, see Dkts 4, 10, 18 & 34.
This action is REMANDED to the Municipal Court of
Missouri City, Texas.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on March 16, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-03869 Document 40 Filed 03/16/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2