Ugwuozor v. Uyamadu

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
S UNDAY U GWUOZOR, 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	CIVIL A CTION N O. 4:25-cv-04975
§
E MEKA U YAMADU, 	§
Defendant. 	§
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On October 21, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint
with facts demonstrating the basis for federal question jurisdiction, giving Plaintiff
until November 10, 2025, to do so.1 ECF 5. Because Plaintiff has failed to file an
amended complaint, the Court recommends the case be dismissed.
As the Court explained in its prior Order, “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction,” and Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. 	Kokkonen
v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal subject matter
jurisdiction requires either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. See
28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. 	Federal question jurisdiction is proper when the “well-
pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law.” 	City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of
Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 157 (1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
1 The District Judge referred this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), the Cost and Delay Reduction Plan under the Civil Justice Reform Act,
and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. ECF 4.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
November 12, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04975 Document 10 Filed on 11/12/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court is required to consider jurisdiction sua sponte. See
Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 919 (5th Cir. 2001).
Plaintiff’s Complaint indicates a federal question as the basis of jurisdiction
but contains no facts raising issues of federal law. ECF 1 at 3. Plaintiff did not file
an amended complaint containing additional facts that would allow the Court to
determine whether jurisdiction is proper. The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to
do so would result in the Magistrate Judge recommending dismissal. ECF 5 at 2.
For the reasons stated above, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s
Complaint (ECF 1) be DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.
The 	Clerk 	of 	the 	Court 	shall 	send 	copies 	of 	the 	memorandum 	and
recommendation to the respective parties, who will then have fourteen days to file
written objections, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 	Failure to file written
objections within the time period provided will bar an aggrieved party from attacking
the factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on
other grounds.
Christina A. Bryan
United States Magistrate Judge
Signed on November 12, 2025, at Houston, Texas.
Case 4:25-cv-04975 Document 10 Filed on 11/12/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 2