Leyva v. Hunter-Kelsey of Texas LLC - Corporation et al

1 / 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
VICTORIA DIVISION
LINDA V. LEYVA,
Plaintiff,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:25-CV-00059
HUNTER-KELSEY OF TEXAS LLC -
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On November 24, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby issued his
“Memorandum and Recommendation to Dismiss” (D.E. 13), recommending that the Court
dismiss all of the claims in Plaintiff Linda V. Levya’s Amended Complaint (D.E. 12).
Plaintiff was provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s
memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”). Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
General Order No. 2002-13. Plaintiff filed her objections with the Court on December 2,
2025.1 D.E. 14.
1 In her objections, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of her motion for appointed counsel, which was
in a separate order from the M&R. See D.E. 14, pp. 1-2. The Court construes that objection as an appeal of a
nondispositive matter and addresses that appeal in a separate order.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 24, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 6:25-cv-00059 Document 15 Filed 04/24/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2 / 4
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Objections must point out with sufficient particularity any alleged error in the
magistrate judge’s analysis; otherwise, they do not constitute proper objections and will
not be considered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419,
421 (5th Cir. 1987) (“[P]arties filing objections must specifically identify those findings
objected to.”). After considering proper objections, the district court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, those portions of the proposed findings and recommendations.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). As to any portion for which no objection is filed, a district court
reviews for clearly erroneous factual findings and conclusions of law. United States v.
Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).
DISCUSSION
Magistrate Judge’s Dismissal. Plaintiff first objects generally to the Magistrate
Judge’s “premature” recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. D.E. 14, pp. 2-4.
Plaintiff also states that the Magistrate Judge appears “confused” and failed to understand
her claims. The Magistrate Judge’s recommendation is not premature, considering that her
pleading is subject to initial screening and Plaintiff was previously given an opportunity to
amend her complaint prior to dismissal. Further, the objection fails to point out specific
error in a particular finding or conclusion and is merely conclusory. This objection is thus
OVERRULED.
Next, Plaintiff asserts that pro se complaints are to be held to less stringent
standards. D.E. 14, pp. 2-3. The M&R recites the appropriate standard for reviewing pro
Case 6:25-cv-00059 Document 15 Filed 04/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3 / 4
se complaints. See D.E. 13, p. 8. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly applied
that standard by liberally construing Plaintiff’s claims. This objection is OVERRULED.
Federal Claims. Plaintiff also objects that she adequately alleged each of the four
federal causes of action in her complaint. D.E. 14, p. 3. Plaintiff argues that she adequately
alleged a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by alleging a Fourteenth Amendment violation
committed by a person acting “under color of law.” Id. This assertion does not address the
Magistrate Judge’s concern that she failed to allege facts regarding any state actor violating
a federal right, which is a required element of that claim. See D.E. 13, p. 11. This objection
is therefore OVERRULED.
Next, she objects that she stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 because she
adequately alleged “[r]acial discrimination on the basis of race/ethnicity in part of all
defendants involved.” D.E. 14, p. 3. She likewise insists that her claim under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1985 sufficiently alleged that “Defendants conspired to deprive her civil rights and equal
protection with their actions.” Id. The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s allegations
for both claims were conclusory and contained insufficient factual predicate. D.E. 13, p.
12. Plaintiff’s reassertions of her conclusory allegations do not cure her complaint’s factual
deficiencies. These objections are thus OVERRULED.
Finally, regarding her attempt to state a claim arising under the Federal Arbitration
Act (FAA), Plaintiff contends that the “FAA supersedes the Texas Arbitration Act” and that
two defendants violated the terms of the arbitration agreement in this case. D.E. 14, p. 3.
The Magistrate Judge explained that the FAA does not create an independent basis for
Case 6:25-cv-00059 Document 15 Filed 04/24/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4 / 4
federal subject matter jurisdiction, and Plaintiff again fails to demonstrate any basis for
federal jurisdiction over this claim. This objection is OVERRULED.
CONCLUSION
Having reviewed the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations set
forth in the Magistrate Judge’s M&R, as well as Plaintiff’s objections and all other relevant
documents in the record, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections and ADOPTS as
its own the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge (D.E. 13). Accordingly, the
Court DISMISSES with prejudice Plaintiff’s federal claims and DISMISSES without
prejudice her state law claims.
ORDERED on April 24, 2026.
_______________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 6:25-cv-00059 Document 15 Filed 04/24/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4