Kamel v. Prosper-Parkside Homeowners Association Inc et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
SHEREEF KAMEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
PROSPER-PARKSIDE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
INC., et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 4:25-cv-221-JDK-KNM
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is Defendant Vinay Patel’s motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6). Docket No. 17. This case was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636.
On February 11, 2026, Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that the motion to dismiss be granted in part. Docket No. 98. Judge
Mitchell recommended that Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendant be
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the attorney-immunity doctrine. Id. Judge
Mitchell further recommended that Plaintiff’s federal claims be dismissed with
prejudice for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Id. The Report did not
reach Defendant’s arguments that (1) the Court should decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, and (2) Plaintiff’s
complaint fails to properly state any of his claims arising under Texas law. Id. at 14.
No written objections have been filed, and the time for filing objections has passed.
Case 4:25-cv-00221-JDK-KNM Document 102 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de
novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and
Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court
examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law.
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc),
superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to
file objections from ten to fourteen days).
Here, no objections were filed. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate
Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews her legal
conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v.
Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that, if no objections to a
Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous,
abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations, the
Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 98) as the opinion of this Court.
Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 17) is GRANTED in part, and Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendant Vinay Patel are DISMISSED with prejudice.
Case 4:25-cv-00221-JDK-KNM Document 102 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27th	February, 2026.
Case 4:25-cv-00221-JDK-KNM Document 102 Filed 02/27/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>