Greene et al v. MV Transportation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CEDRIC GREENE and
VALERIE STEPHEN,
Plaintiffs,
versus
MV TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:26-cv-02445
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiffs Cedric Greene and Valerie Stephen proceed
here pro se. They filed a petition for leave to proceed and
demand relief against Defendant MV Transportation.
Dkt 1. But they don’t provide information regarding the
factual background of their case other than prior attempts
to bring their claims before other courts in Texas,
California, and Arkansas. See id at 2–12.
Plaintiffs also filed an application to proceed in forma
pauperis and a motion to transfer venue to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Brownsville Division. See Dkts 2 & 8.
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Richard W. Bennett. Dkt 5. He entered a
Memorandum and Recommendation in which he
recommended that the petition for leave to proceed and
demand relief be denied and this action be dismissed
without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
See Dkt 9 at 5. He further recommended that the
application to proceed in forma pauperis and motion to
transfer venue be denied as moot. Ibid.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 02, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-02445 Document 11 Filed 06/01/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
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).
Plaintiffs filed objections. Dkt 10. On de novo review
and determination, they entirely lack merit. They restate
intention to transfer this action to the Brownsville Division
pursuant to 28 USC §1404(c). Id at 3. But Plaintiffs
nowhere identify a basis for any federal court to exercise
subject-matter jurisdiction over this dispute.
The objections by Plaintiffs Cedric Greene and Valerie
Stephen to the Memorandum and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge are OVERRULED. Dkt 10.
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 9.
The petition for leave to proceed and demand relief is
DENIED. Dkt 1.
This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The application by Plaintiffs to proceed in forma
pauperis and motion for transfer of venue are DENIED AS
MOOT. Dkts 2 & 8.
A final judgment will enter separately.
Case 4:26-cv-02445 Document 11 Filed 06/01/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
June 01, 2026
Case 4:26-cv-02445 Document 11 Filed 06/01/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3