Mansia v. Edlow

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Roshan Pyarali Mansia,
Plaintiff,
v.
Joseph B. Edlow, Director, United
States Citizenship and Immigration
Services,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-03828
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On August 14, 2025, Plaintiff Roshan Pyarali Mansia filed this suit
seeking to compel Defendant Joseph B. Edlow, Director of United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services, to “issue a bona fide determination” on
his pending Forms I-918 and I-918A. Dkt. 1. The September 5, 2025 Order for
Conference and Disclosure of Interested Parties directed Plaintiff to serve the
summons and complaint within 90 days of filing the complaint, or else risk
“dismissal by the Court on its own initiative.” Dkt. 5 at 1; see also Fed. R. Civ.
P. 4(m) (requiring service within 90 days of filing suit).
Months passed, but Plaintiff failed to file proof that Defendant was
properly served. 	That prompted the Court to issue a November 25, 2025
“Order of Non-Compliance” flagging Plaintiff’s omission. 	Dkt. 6. 	The Order
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 05, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03828 Document 7 Filed 02/05/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
explicitly warned Plaintiff that “[i]f proof of service is not filed by January 7,
2026 this case may be dismissed. Id.
Despite those multiple warnings, Plaintiff has still failed to file proof of
service. 	Accordingly, on its own motion, this Court should dismiss this suit
without prejudice for lack of timely service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff Roshan
Pyarali Mansia’s claims be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for lack of timely service.
The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this opinion to Plaintiff
by email and regular mail at his record addresses.
The parties have fourteen days from service of this Report and
Recommendation to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.
R. 	Civ. 	P. 	72(b). 	Failure 	to 	file 	timely 	objections 	will 	preclude
appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions, except for
plain error. 	Ortiz v. City of San Antonio Fire Dep’t, 806 F.3d 822, 825
(5th Cir. 2015).
Signed on February 5, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
______________________________
Yvonne Y. Ho
United States Magistrate Judge
ton, Texxa	a	asss.
______________________________________________
Yvvvoon	n	nne Y. H	Hoooo
U	U	U	Un	n	niited States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-03828 Document 7 Filed 02/05/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2