D'Oliveira v. State of Texas et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
NESTOR-DANIEL
D’OLIVEIRA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STATE OF TEXAS and
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
PRECINCT 1,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO
4:25-cv-02327
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
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, thus preventing “the issuance
of 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. She issued a Memorandum and
Recommendation recommending that the claims be
dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. Dkt 5.
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
October 31, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-02327 Document 7 Filed 10/31/25 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).
Plaintiff filed objections. Dkt 6. Among other things, he
asserts that his petition was brought under “the Court’s
inherent equitable powers” and that he “invoked exclusive
equity jurisdiction, with ‘Private, Priority, Special,
Confidential, Trade Secrets, Fiduciary Relations’
pleadings.” Id at 1.
Upon de novo review and determination, Plaintiff’s
objections lack merit. Dkt 6. Plaintiff doesn’t allege
anywhere in the petition or objections a legitimate basis for
a federal court to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over
his claims. And he acknowledges that he isn’t in custody,
as required by 28 USC §2254. Dkt 6 at 3. The
recommendation by the Magistrate Judge is thorough and
correct in this respect. Dkt 5 at 2.
Plaintiff points to no other basis upon which subject-
matter jurisdiction is proper. And 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 OVERRULED. Dkt 6.
The Memorandum and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkt 5.
The claims by Plaintiff Nestor-Daniel D’Oliveira
putatively asserted against Defendants the State of Texas
and Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1 are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
This is a FINAL JUDGMENT.
Case 4:25-cv-02327 Document 7 Filed 10/31/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Hon. Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
October 31, 2025
Case 4:25-cv-02327 Document 7 Filed 10/31/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 3