Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MAJOR SINGH JAMMU 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-815
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES
SECTION: “P” (1)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Janis van Meerveld.1 The Report recommends that the Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 7) filed by
Defendant, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, be granted and that this case be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff timely filed written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation, 	arguing 	that 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s 	legal 	analysis 	and 	the 	resulting
recommendation are incorrect.2
The Court has conducted a de novo review3 of the motion to dismiss,4 the supporting and
opposing memoranda,5 the report and recommendation,6 the objections to the report and
recommendation,7 and the applicable laws. 	After a thorough review, the Court concludes the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation should be adopted because the Court lacks jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s APA and INA claims for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge in her Report and
Recommendation. Indeed, upon de novo review, this Court comes to the same conclusion as the
Magistrate Judge for the same reasons. The Court further concludes that Plaintiff has failed to state
1 R. Doc. 11.
2 R. Doc. 12.
3 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (requiring a district judge to determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to).
4 R. Doc. 7.
5 R. Docs. 8–9.
6 R. Doc. 11.
7 R. Doc. 12.
Case 2:25-cv-00815-DJP Document 13 Filed 02/26/26 Page 1 of 2

2
a plausible claim for violation of his Fifth Amendment right to due process for the reasons argued
in Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation with respect to dismissing Plaintiff’s APA and INA claims for lack of
jurisdiction, and the Court modifies the recommendation to include dismissal of the Fifth
Amendment claim for failure to state a claim.
IT 	IS 	THEREFORE 	ORDERED 	that 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s 	Report 	and
Recommendation (R. Doc. 11) is ADOPTED, and Plaintiff’s objections (R. Doc. 12) are
OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (R. Doc. 7) is
GRANTED, and all claims for relief in Plaintiff’s Complaint (R. Doc. 1) are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the respective reasons stated herein.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 26th day of February 2026.
______________________________________
DARREL JAMES PAPILLION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00815-DJP Document 13 Filed 02/26/26 Page 2 of 2