Osazuwa v. Walgreens

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
EVIA C. OSAZUWA, §
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-CV-4852
§
WALGREENS, §
Defendant. §
AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On September 24, 2025, this Magistrate Judge issued a Memorandum and
Recommendation recommending that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be granted
and this case be dismissed with prejudice.1 ECF 34. The District Judge overruled
Plaintiff’s objections and adopted the recommendations in full. ECF 36. The Court
entered Final Judgment on October 15, 2025. ECF 37. Plaintiff filed a timely Notice
of Appeal. ECF 38. The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Leave to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis on appeal. ECF 41.
On January 21, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider and Reopen citing
excusable neglect because she is a pro se litigant. ECF 42. Because it was filed 99
days after entry of final judgment, the Court deems it to be a Motion pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). However, a perfected appeal divests the
1 The District Court referred this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), the Cost and Delay Reduction Plan under the Civil Justice Reform Act,
and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. ECF 9.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 27, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:23-cv-04852 Document 44 Filed 01/27/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
district court of jurisdiction to do anything other than deny a Rule 60(b) motion
under these circumstances. Thermacor Process, L.P. v. BASF Corp., 567 F.3d 736,
744 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Shepherd v. Int'l Paper Co., 372 F.3d 326, 329 (5th
Cir.2004)). The Court therefore RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion to
Reconsider or Reopen this closed case be DENIED for lack of jurisdiction.
The Clerk of the Court shall send copies of the memorandum and
recommendation to the respective parties, who will then have fourteen days to file
written objections, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file written
objections within the time period provided will bar an aggrieved party from attacking
the factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on
other grounds.
Christina A. Bryan
United States Magistrate Judge
Signed on January 27, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
Case 4:23-cv-04852 Document 44 Filed 01/27/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2