D'Oliveira v. State of Texas et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
NESTOR-DANIEL
D’OLIVEIRA,
Plaintiff,
versus
STATE OF TEXAS and
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
PRECINCT 1,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-02327
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Nestor-Daniel D’Oliveira proceeds here pro se.
He filed an “equitable petition for declaratory and
injunctive relief” in which he challenged two state court
judgments convicting him of misdemeanor traffic
violations and imposing fines and costs. Dkt 1 at ¶5. He
sought a declaration that these judgments violate due
process and injunctive relief preventing “the issuance or
execution of any warrant” that might subject him “to arrest
or incarceration arising from the void judgment.” Id at 3.
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Yvonne Ho. Dkt 3. Judge Ho issued a Memorandum
and Recommendation in which she recommended that the
claims be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction. Dkt 5. Plaintiff filed objections. Dkt 6.
Such objections were overruled, and Plaintiff’s claims were
dismissed without prejudice. Dkt 7 at 2.
Pending is a motion by Plaintiff for reconsideration.
Dkt 9. Judge Ho issued a second Memorandum and
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 12, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-02327 Document 18 Filed 01/08/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
Recommendation recommending this motion be denied.
Dkt 10.
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).
Plaintiff made numerous filings, liberally construed as
objections, after the requisite deadline lapsed. Dkts 12, 13,
14 & 15. Such objections are thus properly STRICKEN.
But even upon de novo review and determination, they
lack merit. The filings challenge the authority of the
Magistrate Judge over this action. But nowhere does
Plaintiff articulate any basis by which subject-matter
jurisdiction may be maintained over this action.
No clear error otherwise appears upon review and
consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation,
the record, and the applicable law.
The objections by Plaintiff Nestor-Daniel D’Oliveira to
the Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge are STRICKEN. They are also OVERRULED. Dkts 12, 13,
14 & 15.
The Memorandum and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkt 10.
The motion by Plaintiff Nestor-Daniel D’Oliveira for
reconsideration of prior order is DENIED. Dkt 9.
Case 4:25-cv-02327 Document 18 Filed 01/08/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
__________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
January 08, 2026
Case 4:25-cv-02327 Document 18 Filed 01/08/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3