Helaire v. Villarreal et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:25-cv-03547 Document 37 Filed 03/27/26 in TXSD Pagelof3

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION
NAMEAH HELAIRE, § CrIvIL ACTION NUMBER
Plaintiff, § 4:25-cv-03547
§
§
versus § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
§
§
ANTONIO VILLARREAL, §
et al, §
Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Nameah Helaire proceeds here pro se. She
brings claims for various violations of her civil rights under
42, USC §1983. See Dkt 1 at 4. The matter was referred for
disposition to Magistrate Judge Yvonne Ho. Dkt 4.

Judge Ho entered an order acknowledging that
Plaintiff had served Defendants Amtaro Montoya, Angel
August, and Antonio Villarreal. See Dkt 15 at 1, citing
Dkts 6, 7 & 8 (returns of service). But Plaintiff hadn’t
served Defendants Houston Police Department, Harris
County District Attorney’s Office, Daniel Nunez, or
Christian Rome despite expiration of the relevant deadline
for service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). See
ibid. Judge Ho thus ordered Plaintiff to file proof of valid
service for all unserved Defendants by November 21, 2025.
Id at 2.

Plaintiff failed to do so. Judge Ho then entered a
Memorandum and Recommendation recommending that

Plaintiffs claims against the unserved Defendants be
dismissed without prejudice. Dkt 25 at 4.

United States District Court
Southem District of Texas

ENTERED
March 27, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

Case 4:25-cv-03547 Document 37 Filed 03/27/26 in TXSD Page 2of3

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 § 686(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 (19838).

Plaintiff filed objections. See Dkts 28 & 30. She states
that she is proceeding in forma pauperis and was thus
entitled to rely on the United States Marshals to effectuate
service. Dkt 30 at 1. Plaintiff further contends that any
delay was the result of conflicting records rather than a
lack of diligence. Dkt 28 at 2.

On de novo review and determination, the objections
lack merit. Even a Plaintiff relying on the Marshals for
service must “[a]t a minimum... attempt to remedy any
apparent service defects of which a plaintiff has
knowledge.” Rochon v Dawson, 828 F2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir
1987). Plaintiff failed to ensure the relevant Defendants
were served within the initial deadline under Rule 4(m)
and again after receiving an extension of time from the
Magistrate Judge. Further, Plaintiff hasn’t explained why
she didn’t request an additional extension prior to
expiration of the relevant deadline. She thus fails to show
good cause for failure to effect service on the relevant
Defendants.

Following entry of the Memorandum and
Recommendation, a return of service for Defendant
Christian Rome appeared on the docket. Dkt 36. It
indicates Defendant Rome was served on February 25,
2026. Ibid. Judge Ho had previously ordered the United
States Marshals not to serve two other Defendants who
had not been served prior to expiration of the extended
deadline. See Dkt 29. She there noted that “Plaintiff cannot
circumvent the pending recommendation to dismiss all her

Case 4:25-cv-03547 Document 37 Filed 03/27/26 in TXSD Page 3of3

claims” by untimely service on these Defendants. Id at 2.
The same applies to Defendant Rome. Plaintiffs untimely
service doesn’t cure her failure to effectuate service under
the original or extended deadlines.

The objections by Plaintiff Nameah Helaire to the
Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge are OVERRULED. Dkt 28 & 30.

No clear error otherwise appears upon review and
consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation,
the record, and the applicable law.

The Memorandum and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkt 25.

Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Houston Police
Department, Harris County District Attorney’s Office,
Daniel Nunez, and Christian Rome are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.

Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Amtaro Montoya,
Angel August, and Antonio Villarreal continue.

SO ORDERED.

Signed on March 27, 2026, at Houston, Texas.

(WF Aluidee

Honorable Charles Eg skridge
United States District Judge