Singletary et al v. Brookstone Law Coalition et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MICHAEL WAYNE
SINGLETARY,
Plaintiff,
versus
BROOKSTONE LAW
COALITION, et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-03760
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Michael Wayne Singletary proceeds here
pro se. He filed this lawsuit alleging that Defendants
Brookstone Law Coalition, Scott Bernard, Gianna Miceli,
and Inalienable University, fraudulently enticed him into
paying significant fees toward a sham mortgage debt
elimination program. Dkt 10 (amended complaint). The
matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Dena Hanovice Palermo. Dkt 4.
Judge Palermo recommends that the action be
dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m)
because Plaintiff failed to serve Defendants within ninety
days of filing the amended complaint. Dkt 25.
Plaintiff filed objections. Dkt 26. He doesn’t dispute
that he hasn’t properly served Defendants. But he
maintains that extension of the service deadline, not
dismissal, is the proper remedy under the circumstances.
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
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 28, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03760 Document 27 Filed 07/28/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
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).
Upon de novo review and determination, Plaintiff’s
objections lack merit.
Rule 4(m) does permit discretionary extension of the
service deadline. But that relief isn’t appropriate here.
Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on September 29,
2025. Dkt 10. On October 7, 2025, he was warned that
failure to properly serve Defendants would result in
dismissal of the action. Dkt 12. Nine months have passed,
and service hasn’t been effectuated. Dismissal is
appropriate under Rule 4(m).
That Plaintiff proceeds here pro se doesn’t counsel a
different result. The Supreme Court has “never suggested
that procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation should be
interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed
without counsel.” McNeil v United States, 508 US 106, 113
(1993); West v Adecco Employment Agency, 124 F Appx 991,
992 (6th Cir 2005). Indeed, pro se parties must know their
legal rights and follow basic procedural rules. For example,
see Brackens v Stericycle Inc, 829 F Appx 17, 20 (5th Cir
2020); Boswell v Honorable Governor of Texas, 138 F Supp
2d 782, 786 (ND Tex 2000); Washington v Jackson State
University, 532 F Supp 2d 804, 809 (SD Miss 2006). As
such, Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 4 warrants
dismissal of his claims, notwithstanding his pro se status.
The objections to the Memorandum and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are OVERRULED.
Dkt 26.
No clear error otherwise appears upon review and
consideration of the Report and Recommendation, the
record, and the applicable law.
Case 4:25-cv-03760 Document 27 Filed 07/28/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this
Court. Dkt 25.
This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
A final judgment will issue by separate order.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on July 28, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-03760 Document 27 Filed 07/28/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3