Owoeye v. Capital Fund I, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ROTIMI OWOEYE,
Plaintiff,
versus
CAPITAL FUND I, LLC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:26-cv-01652
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Rotimi Owoeye proceeds here pro se. He filed
this lawsuit seeking to enjoin Defendant Capital Fund I,
LLC, from foreclosing on his property. Dkt 4 (amended
complaint). The matter was referred for disposition to
Magistrate Judge Dena Hanovice Palermo. Dkt 6.
Pending is a motion to dismiss by Defendant. Dkt 5. It
asserts that the amended complaint states no substantive
causes of action or facts that could support a cause of
action, thus undermining Plaintiff’s request for injunctive
relief. Id at 2. Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion.
Judge Palermo then afforded Plaintiff additional time to
respond, warning that failure to do so would result in
dismissal for want of prosecution. Dkt 8. Plaintiff again
failed to file a response or otherwise take any action in the
matter.
Judge Palermo recommends that the action be
dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for
want of prosecution. Dkt 9. She further recommends that
dismissal be with prejudice, given Plaintiff’s “clear record
of delay” by failing to respond despite court order to do so.
Id at 3–6.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 28, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-01652 Document 10 Filed 07/27/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
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).
None of the parties filed objections. No clear error
otherwise appears upon review and consideration of the
Report and Recommendation, the record, and the
applicable law.
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this
Court. Dkt 9.
This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The motion to dismiss by Capital Fund I, LLC, is
DENIED AS MOOT. Dkt 5.
A final judgment will issue by separate order.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
July 27, 2026
Case 4:26-cv-01652 Document 10 Filed 07/27/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2