Nguyen v. Mizell et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
ALEX NGUYEN,
Plaintiff.
V.
A.C. MIZELL, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
3:25-cv-00204
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
On January 13, 2026, all pretrial matters in this case were referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Dkt. 15.
Judge Edison filed a memorandum and recommendation on March 25, 2026,
recommending that two pending motions to dismiss (Dkts. 28, 29) be granted, that
the court sua sponte dismiss the remaining individual defendants for failure to
effect service of process, and that the court sua sponte dismiss the claims against
the Board of Trustees of the Galveston Wharves (the “Board”) and the Doe
defendants under Rule 12(b)(6). Dkt. 35.
On April 8, 2026, the plaintiff filed his objections to the memorandum and
recommendation. Dkt. 38. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court
is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate
judge’s] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection [has been] made.” After conducting this de novo review, the court may
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 23, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 3:25-cv-00204 Document 39 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2/3
“accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The court has carefully considered the objections; the memorandum and
recommendation; the pleadings; and the record. The court accepts Judge Edison’s
memorandum and recommendation and adopts it as the opinion of the court.
In addition to his objections, the plaintiff requests leave to file a second
amended complaint and an extension of time to effect service. The court will grant
plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint as to Defendants Kenneth
Brown, Jr., the Board, and the Doe defendants. The court denies, however, the
plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to effect service. On October 16, 2025,
the 	court 	warned 	the 	plaintiff 	that 	failure 	to 	“either 	serve 	the 	[unserved]
defendants or show cause, in writing, as to why [his] claims against the defendants
should not be dismissed for failure to timely serve them” by December 15,
2025 “may result in dismissal of this action.” Dkt. 7 at 2. The court denies plaintiff’s
request for additional time to serve, which is made nearly four months after the
court’s deadline.
It is therefore ordered that:
(1) 	Judge Edison’s memorandum and recommendation (Dkt. 35) is
approved and adopted in its entirety as the holding of the court;
(2) 	Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants A.C. Mizell, Fernando Herrera,
Wesley Devine, and Jennifer Matlage are dismissed;
(3) 	Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Dkt. 18) is dismissed without
prejudice;
Case 3:25-cv-00204 Document 39 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3/3
(4) 	Plaintiff may file a second complaint as to only Brown, the Board, and
the Doe defendants by Friday, May 8, 2026.
SIGNED on Galveston Island this 23rd day of April, 2026.
______________________________
JEFFREY VINCENT BROWN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-00204 Document 39 Filed 04/23/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3