Gilliam v. Gonzalez et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
LEROY GILLIAM,
Plaintiff,
versus
ED GONZALEZ, et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-05083
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff LeRoy Gilliam proceeds here pro se. He sues
Defendants Ed Gonzalez, Noe Diaz, Sherman Eagleton,
and Sean Teare. See Dkt 12 at 2 (first amended complaint).
He brings this action to seek relief for “alleged violations of
[his] constitutional rights, as well as repeated harassment,
misconduct, and abuse of authority.” Id at 1. The matter
was referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge Dena
Hanovice Palermo. Dkt 14.
Diaz and Eagleton moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. See Dkts 16 & 18. Judge Palermo entered an
order granting Teare leave to file a motion to dismiss and
ordering Plaintiff to respond to such motion by January 8,
2026. See Dkt 21; see also Dkt 22 (motion). Plaintiff failed
to respond to any of the motions. Judge Palermo then
ordered Plaintiff to respond to each of the pending motions
to dismiss by February 13, 2026. See Dkt 23. Plaintiff again
failed to respond. Judge Palermo then entered a Report
and Recommendation recommending that this action be
dismissed with prejudice for want of prosecution. Dkt 24.
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
March 31, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-05083 Document 25 Filed 03/31/26 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 Report and
Recommendation, the record, and the applicable law.
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this
Court. Dkt 24.
This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
All pending motions to dismiss are DENIED AS MOOT.
For example, see Dkts 16, 18 & 22.
A final judgment will enter separately.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on March 31, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-05083 Document 25 Filed 03/31/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2