Ruffin v. Remy Real Estate & Investment Inc et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
MARY RUFFIN,
Plaintiff.
V.
REMY REAL ESTATE
INVESTMENT INC, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
3:25-cv-399
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On February 11, 2026, all pretrial matters in this case were referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Dkt. 21.
Judge Edison filed a memorandum opinion, order, and recommendation on April
8, 2026, recommending that the court grant the pending motions to dismiss,
Dkts. 11, 19, 32, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker–Feldman
doctrine. Dkt. 45 at 14. To the extent this court retains jurisdiction over any portion
of the plaintiff Mary Ruffin’s claims the defendants Keith Gross and Remy Real
Estate Investment, Inc., Judge Edison recommends the court hold that Ruffin fails
to 	state 	a 	claim 	against 	either 	Gross 	or 	Remy. 	Id. 	Finally, 	Judge 	Edison
recommends that Ruffin’s motion for preliminary injunction, Dkt. 22, be denied.
On April 20, 2026, Ruffin filed her objections to the memorandum and
recommendation. Dkt. 47. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court
is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 30, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 3:25-cv-00399 Document 49 Filed 04/30/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
judge’s] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection [has been] made.” After conducting this de novo review, the court may
“accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The court has carefully considered the objections; the memorandum and
recommendation; the pleadings; and the record. The court accepts Judge Edison’s
memorandum and recommendation and adopts it as the opinion of the court.
In her objections, Ruffin requests leave to amend her complaint. The Fifth
Circuit has said that “plaintiffs facing a motion to dismiss [should] go through a
process of receiving briefing from the movant, conducting research and submitting
opposing briefing to the district court, and finally receiving a ruling identifying
potential flaws in their original complaint.” Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons
Educ. Found. v. Am. Bd. of Internal Med., 103 F.4th 383, 394 (5th Cir. 2024).
Thus, Ruffin may amend her complaint. Ruffin must file her amended complaint
by Friday, May 8, 2026. Ruffin must assert all relevant factual allegations and all
possible causes of actions that she might have against any defendant in her
amended complaint. The court will not grant Ruffin leave to amend again.
It is therefore ordered that:
(1) 	Judge 	Edison’s 	memorandum 	and 	recommendation, 	Dkt. 	45, 	is
approved and adopted in its entirety as the holding of the court;
(2) 	The defendants’ motions to dismiss, Dkts. 11, 19, 32, are granted;
(3) 	Ruffin’s motion for a preliminary injunction, Dkt. 22, is denied;
Case 3:25-cv-00399 Document 49 Filed 04/30/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
(4) 	Ruffin is granted leave to file an amended complaint by Friday, May
8, 2026.
SIGNED on Galveston Island this 30th day of April 2026.
______________________________
JEFFREY VINCENT BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-00399 Document 49 Filed 04/30/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3