Harris v. Bio-Medical Application of Texas Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JERRY JEROME HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
versus
BIO-MEDICAL
APPLICATION OF TEXAS,
INC d/b/a FRESENIUS
KIDNEY CARE PEARLAND,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-03413
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Jerry Jerome Harris proceeds here pro se. He
brings federal law claims against Defendant Bio-Medical
Application of Texas, Inc, for disability discrimination, race
discrimination, sex discrimination, sexual harassment,
retaliation, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act. Dkt 16 at ¶¶38–59, 67–73
(second amended complaint). He also brings claims under
Texas law for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, and common law fraud. Id at ¶¶60–66, 74–78. The
matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge
Christina A. Bryan. Dkt 9.
Pending is a motion by Defendant to dismiss all claims
against it for failure to state a claim. Dkt 20. Judge Bryan
recommends that the motion be granted and that Plaintiff’s
federal claims be dismissed with prejudice. Dkt 30 at 20.
She also recommends that the state law claims be
dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Ibid.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 29, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03413 Document 39 Filed 06/29/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

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).
Plaintiff filed objections. Dkt 31. He objects to the
dismissal of his federal claims with prejudice and requests
leave to amend his complaint again on account of his pro se
status. See id at 2–4. Defendant responds that dismissal is
warranted and requests that the Memorandum and
Recommendation be adopted in full. See Dkt 33 at 3–5.
Upon de novo review and determination, the objections
lack merit. The Memorandum and Recommendation
thoroughly articulates why each of the federal claims
advanced by Plaintiff lack merit. See Dkt 30 at 3–18. Judge
Bryan also correctly determined that leave to amend
should be denied because Plaintiff has (i) already amended
his complaint twice, and (ii) failed to cure pleading
deficiencies noted in both a prior and the current motions
to dismiss. Id at 18–20; see also Dkts 10 & 16 (amended
complaints), Dkts 11 & 20 (motions to dismiss). Nowhere
in the objections does Plaintiff state how further
amendment would cure such deficiencies. And his pro se
status doesn’t itself grant him another attempt at
amendment given this failure.
The objections by Plaintiff Jerry Jerome Harris to the
Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge are OVERRULED. To the extent that Plaintiff requests
leave to amend his complaint, such request is DENIED.
Dkt 31.
No clear error otherwise appears upon review and
consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation,
the record, and the applicable law.
Case 4:25-cv-03413 Document 39 Filed 06/29/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
The Memorandum and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkt 30.
The motion by Defendant Bio-Medical Application of
Texas, Inc, to dismiss is GRANTED. Dkt 20.
All federal law claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Dkt 16 at ¶¶38–59, 67–73.
All state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Id at ¶¶60–66, 74–78.
A final judgment will enter separately.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
__________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
June 29, 2026
Case 4:25-cv-03413 Document 39 Filed 06/29/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3