Adeyinka v. Texas Health and Human Services

UNITED S TATES DISTRICT C OURT
S OUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
EMMANUEL A DEYINKA ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
T EXAS HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES ,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION N O
4:25-cv-00689
J UDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER A DOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Emmanuel Adeyinka proceeds here pro se. He
filed a complaint asserting violations of Texas Government
Code Chapter 551 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution. Dkt 3 at 2. Plaintiff also brings
claims for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and
intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id at 1–3.
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Richard Bennett. Dkt 8. Judge Bennett set an initial
conference for June 27, 2025. Dkt 9. Plaintiff failed to
appear. Dkt 12. Plaintiff was then ordered to, within ten
days, show cause as to why he failed to appear, why the
parties failed to submit a joint case management plan, and
why the action should not be dismissed. Dkt 13 at 1–2.
Plaintiff failed to respond. Judge Bennett then issued a
Memorandum 	and 	Recommendation 	in 	which 	he
recommended that the claims by Plaintiff be dismissed
without prejudice for failure to comply with prior order.
Dkt 15 at 3.
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
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
November 21, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-00689 Document 16 Filed on 11/18/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
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).
No party filed objections. No clear error 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 15.
The claims by Plaintiff Emmanuel Adeyinka asserted
against Defendant Texas Health and Human Services are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The motions by Defendant to dismiss and to stay
discovery are DENIED AS MOOT . Dkts 11 & 14.
This is a FINAL JUDGMENT .
SO ORDERED.
Signed on November 18, 2025, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Hon. Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-00689 Document 16 Filed on 11/18/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 2