Williams et al v. City of Fort Worth et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
J ARROD D. WILLIAMS, ET AL .,
Plaintiffs,
v. 	No. 4:25-cv-574-P
CITY OF FORT W ORTH, ET AL .,
Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On February 20, 2026, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation (“FCR”) in this case. ECF
No. 72. The FCR recommended that the Court dismiss the case for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs filed a “Response” to the FFR on
March 3, 2026. ECF No. 73. Because Plaintiffs proceed pro se, the Court
will 	construe 	its 	response 	as 	an 	objection. 	The 	Court accordingly
conducted a de novo review of the FCR.
As detailed below, the Court will DISMISS the case for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, ADOPT the reasoning in the Magistrate
Judge’s FCR, and OVERRULE Plaintiffs’ Objections.
BACKGROUND
This case arises from an alleged arrest asserted by Plaintiff Jarrod
D. Williams on behalf of himself and his two minor children that
included an alleged forced entry by the police into his home and ensuing
damage in the home. Plaintiffs claim that the Officer Defendants therein
engaged in a litany of unlawful acts. Those facts led to this lawsuit
LEGAL STANDARD
A Magistrate Judge’s FCR regarding a dispositive matter is reviewed
de novo if a party timely objects. FED. R. CIV . P. 72(b)(3). The district
Case 4:25-cv-00574-P Document 77 Filed 03/10/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

2
court may then accept, reject, or modify the recommendation or findings,
in whole or in part. Id.
ANALYSIS
Throughout the filings, Plaintiffs deny that their claims arise under
Section 1983 but rather claim that their lawsuits are for breach of
contract and for breach of trust. The only means by which this Court, as
a federal court, may have subject matter jurisdiction over these claims
would be by means of Section 1983. But Plaintiffs have unequivocally
said that they are not asserting claims under Section 1983. Therefore,
the Plaintiffs are only bringing state law claims, and this Court does not
have subject matter jurisdiction seeing that there is no federal question.
In Plaintiffs’ response to the FFR, they seek an opportunity to amend
their complaint once more. The Court properly denies a Motion to Leave
to Amend when amendment is sought for purposes of undue delay or bad
faith or in the face of a failure to cure deficiencies. Calhoun v. Villa, 761
Fed. App’x 297, 300–01 (5th Cir. 2019). Plaintiffs has already repeatedly
made clear in their filings, such as his Amended Complaint, and
responses that he is not proceeding under Section 1983. So allowing for
an amendment at this stage on that very issue would be prejudicial to
Defendants.
Plaintiffs also object, in an unclear manner, that because Plaintiffs
have a remedy in state court and because the memory of witnesses may
fade, the federal court should use its equitable powers to allow this case
to continue in federal court. For the reasons previously state, the Court
declines that invitation and overrules Plaintiffs objections.
CONCLUSION
Having conducted a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s FCR
and Plaintiffs’ Objections, the Court DISMISSES without prejudice
the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, ADOPTS the reasoning
in the FCR, and OVERRULES Plaintiffs’ Objections.
SO ORDERED on this 10th day of March 2026.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
REGINALEA KEMP ,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 4:23-cv-00841-P
REGIONS BANK ET AL .,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File
Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 18. Having considered the Motion
and applicable docket entries, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
SO ORDERED on this 18th day of September 2023.
______________________________________________
Mark T. Pittman
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-00574-P Document 77 Filed 03/10/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>