Ali v. Shamscid-Deen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
VINCENT A. ALI,
Plaintiff,
versus
WALEED SHAMSCID-DEEN
and QLMA RESTAURANT
HOLDINGS, LLC,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:24-cv-03629
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDA AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff Vincent A. Ali proceeds here pro se. He sues
Defendants Waleed Shamscid-Deen and QLMA
Restaurant Holdings, LLC. He has filed multiple amended
complaints in this action. See Dkts 12, 17, 25, & 26. The
live complaint brings claims for fraud, to recover on an
unspecified “loan from daughter,” and for a stress-induced
heart condition. Dkt 26 at 2.
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Yvonne Ho. Dkt 6. Plaintiff filed a motion for default
judgment. Dkt 20. Judge Ho entered a Memorandum and
Recommendation recommending that the motion be denied
because it was procedurally faulty, lacked sufficient factual
support, and Plaintiff’s requested damages were
unrecoverable. Dkt 21 at 6–10. She further ordered that
Plaintiff would be given one last opportunity to file an
amended complaint. Id at 10.
Plaintiff filed the live complaint and again moved for
default judgment. See Dkts 26 & 28 (motion). Judge Ho
entered another Memorandum and Recommendation
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 16, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-03629 Document 33 Filed 03/10/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
recommending that the motion be denied and this suit
dismissed with prejudice. Dkt 29 at 12–13. She specifically
noted that Plaintiff’s “pleading remains woefully insuffi-
cient” for default judgment. Id at 10. And she recommended
dismissal with prejudice given absence of any indication
that Plaintiff could plead a cognizable claim if allowed
another opportunity to amend. Id at 12.
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of
a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(C); see
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no
clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v
PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
No party filed objections. No clear error appears upon
review and consideration of the Memoranda and Recom-
mendations, the record, and the applicable law.
The Memoranda and Recommendations of the
Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkts 21 & 29.
It is noted that Plaintiff filed a motion to disqualify
Judge Ho on grounds of racial and religious prejudice. See
Dkt 30; see also Dkt 31 (related letter). It was denied for
failing to state any evidence of any actual bias. Dkt 32. The
undersigned finds that motion was properly denied and
that, as noted in the order, recourse was by way of
objections and appeal. Id at 2. Thus, even if construed as
an objection to the prior Memoranda and
Recommendations, it is OVERRULED. Dkt 30.
The motions by Plaintiff Vincent A. Ali for default
judgment are DENIED. Dkts 20 & 28.
A final judgment dismissing this action with prejudice
will enter separately.
Case 4:24-cv-03629 Document 33 Filed 03/10/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
SO ORDERED.
Signed on March 10, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:24-cv-03629 Document 33 Filed 03/10/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3