Kamel v. Prosper-Parkside Homeowners Association Inc et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
SHEREEF KAMEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
PROSPER-PARKSIDE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
INC., et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 4:25-cv-221-JDK-KNM
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Grant
Neidenfeuhr, Soprina Reeves, Prosper-Parkside Homeowners Association, Inc.,
Neighborhood Management, Inc., Obed Morales, FirstService Residential Texas, Inc.,
Erica Beasley, Angelica Montfort, Brady Small, Edwin Leland, Matthew Bridges, and
Leigh Gressett. Docket Nos. 18, 21–28, and 32–35. In addition to seeking dismissal
for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), each motion seeks dismissal for
insufficient process under Rule 12(b)(4) and/or insufficient service of process under
Rule 12(b)(5). Id. This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole
Mitchell in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636.
On February 11, 2026, Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation
concluding that Plaintiff’s attempts to serve Defendants were insufficient. Docket
No. 97. Having separately granted Plaintiff leave to properly effectuate service
(Docket No. 94), Judge Mitchell recommended that the motions to dismiss under Rule
Case 4:25-cv-00221-JDK-KNM Document 101 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
12(b)(4) and Rule 12(b)(5) be denied without prejudice and that Plaintiff’s prior
service attempts be quashed. Docket No. 97. Determining that lack of proper service
precluded the Court from exercising personal jurisdiction over Defendants, Judge
Mitchell declined to consider Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) arguments. Id. No written
objections have been filed, and the time for filing objections has passed.
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de
novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and
Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court
examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law.
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc),
superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to
file objections from ten to fourteen days).
Here, no objections were filed. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate
Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews her legal
conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v.
Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that, if no objections to a
Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous,
abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations, the
Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 97) as the opinion of this Court.
Case 4:25-cv-00221-JDK-KNM Document 101 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Docket Nos. 18, 21–28, 32–35) are DENIED
without prejudice to refiling following the expiration of Plaintiff’s 30-day period to
properly effectuate service. See Docket No. 94. Plaintiff’s prior insufficient service
attempts are QUASHED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27th	February, 2026.
Case 4:25-cv-00221-JDK-KNM Document 101 Filed 02/27/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>