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 Priceless Water Well Service, LLC’s motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6). Docket No. 16. 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
concluding that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims
against Defendant Priceless Water Well Service, LLC. Docket No. 99. Judge Mitchell
therefore recommended that the motion to dismiss be granted pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1) and that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Priceless Water Well Service,
LLC be dismissed without prejudice. Id. Concluding that the Court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction, the Report did not reach Defendant’s arguments for dismissal
under Rule 12(b)(6). No written objections have been filed, and the time for filing
objections has passed.
Case 4:25-cv-00221-JDK-KNM Document 103 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superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to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 Recommendation, 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. 99) as the opinion of this Court.
Defendant’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) (Docket No. 16) is GRANTED,
and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Priceless Water Well Service, LLC are
DISMISSED without prejudice.
Case 4:25-cv-00221-JDK-KNM Document 103 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 103 Filed 02/27/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>