Joseph v. Navy Federal Credit Union

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
J AHAUA J OSEPH,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 4:25-cv-0827-P
N AVY F EDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On December 5, 2025, the United States Magistrate Judge issued
two Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendations (“FCR”) in this
case. ECF Nos. 13, 14. The First FCR recommended that the Plaintiff be
declared a vexatious litigant and be warned that monetary sanctions
may be imposed for future vexatious litigation and that Plaintiff must
obtain leave of court by filing a motion before filing any additional
complaints in this District. ECF No. 13. The Second FCR recommended
that Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint be dismissed for failing to
state a claim and for being frivolous. ECF No. 14. Plaintiff filed an
Objection to the FCR on December 18, 2025. ECF No. 15. The Court
accordingly conducted a de novo review of the FCR.
As 	detailed 	below, 	the 	Court 	will 	AFFIRM 	and 	ADOPT 	the
reasoning in both the Magistrate Judge’s FCRs and OVERRULE
Plaintiff’s Objections.
BACKGROUND
This case constitutes Plaintiff’s fourth cumulative case filed in the
Northern District of Texas since June 2025. The other three cases
include Joseph v. Texas Health and Human Services, 4:25-cv-668-P,
Joseph 	v. 	Vandergriff 	Chevrolet, 	4:25-cv-00669-O, 	and 	Joseph 	v.
Vandergriff Chevrolet, 4:25-cv-00930-Y.
Case 4:25-cv-00827-P Document 16 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
In this case, Joseph contends that he is entitled to an unspecified
type of loan from Defendant in the amount requested exclusively
because he sent in various self-created documents demanding that loan.
LEGAL STANDARD
A Magistrate Judge’s FCR regarding a dispositive matter is reviewed
de novo if a party timely objects. FED. R. CIV . P. 72(b)(3). The district
court may 	then 	accept, 	reject, 	or modify 	the 	recommendations 	or
findings, in whole or in part. Id.
Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes the dismissal of a complaint that fails “to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” FED. R. CIV . P. 12(b)(6).
This rule must be interpreted in conjunction with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a), which sets forth the requirements for pleading a claim
for relief in federal court. Rule 8(a) calls for “a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV .
P. 8(a)(2); see also Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 513 (2002)
(holding that Rule 8(a)’s simplified standard applies to most civil
actions). The Court must accept as true all well-pleaded, non-conclusory
allegations in the complaint and liberally construe the complaint in
favor of the plaintiff. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale
Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1050 (5th Cir. 1982).
Plaintiff must, however, plead specific facts, not mere conclusory
allegations, to avoid dismissal. Guidry v. Bank of LaPlace, 954 F.2d 278,
281 (5th Cir. 1992). Indeed, Plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level, … on the assumption that all
the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Id.
at 	555 	(cleaned 	up). 	The 	Court 	need 	not 	credit 	bare 	conclusory
allegations or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action.” Id. Rather, “[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
“Generally, a court ruling on a motion to dismiss may rely on only
the complaint and its proper attachments.” Dorsey v. Portfolio Equities,
Case 4:25-cv-00827-P Document 16 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
Inc., 540 F.3d 333, 338 (5th Cir. 2008) (cleaned up). A “court may
consider documents attached to a motion to dismiss that are referred to
in the plaintiff’s complaint and are central to the plaintiff’s claim.”
Sullivan v. Leor Energy, LLC, 600 F.3d 542, 546 (5th Cir. 2010) (cleaned
up). If a court determines that dismissal of a claim is appropriate, it
should be with prejudice if amending the claim would be futile or “the
plaintiff has alleged his best case.” Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 327
(5th Cir. 1999).
Additionally, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court shall,
sua sponte, dismiss a case proceeding IFP if the court determines the
case is frivolous or fails to state a claim. A complaint is frivolous if it
“lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989).
ANALYSIS OF OBJECTION
A. 	Review of Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions that
Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and
thus that the Motion should be dismissed because it is “clearly baseless.”
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992). The Court also agrees
that the Plaintiff should be declared a vexatious litigant given his
history of litigation. Accordingly, the Court adopts and accepts the
reasoning in the Magistrate Judge’s FCR after a review of Plaintiff’s
Objections.
CONCLUSION
Having conducted a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s FCR,
and 	Plaintiff’s 	Objections, 	the 	Court 	AFFIRMS 	the 	Decisions,
ADOPTS the reasoning in both of the Magistrate Judge’s FCRs, and
OVERRULES 	Plaintiff’s 	Objections. 	Accordingly, 	all 	claims 	are
DISMISSED with prejudice, and Plaintiff is hereby DECLARED a
vexatious litigant.
SO ORDERED on this 13th day of January 2026.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
REGINALEA KEMP ,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 4:23-cv-00841-P
REGIONS BANK ET AL .,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File
Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 18. Having considered the Motion
and applicable docket entries, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
SO ORDERED on this 18th day of September 2023.
______________________________________________
Mark T. Pittman
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-00827-P Document 16 Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>