Clark v. U.S. Department of Justice

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
LASHAWN DOREE CLARK,
Plaintiff,
versus
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:26-cv-02539
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff LaShawn Doree Clark proceeds here pro se.
She appears to allege the existence of a criminal enterprise
engaged in violations of the Racketeer Influence and
Corrupt Organizations Act. See Dkt 1 at 4–5. Plaintiff filed
a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt 2. She also filed
several motions for emergency relief. Dkts 4, 5, 6 & 8.
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Yvonne Ho. Dkt 7. She recommends granting the
motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt 10 at 15. But
Judge Ho further recommends that Plaintiff’s claims be
dismissed with prejudice under 28 USC §1915(e)(2)(B) as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim, and that her
remaining motions be 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
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 25, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02539 Document 11 Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

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 10.
The claims by Plaintiff LaShawn Doree Clark are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and for failure to
state a claim under 28 USC §1915(e)(2)(B).
Any other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. See
Dkts 4, 5, 6 & 8.
This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
A final judgment will enter separately.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
June 25, 2026
Case 4:26-cv-02539 Document 11 Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2