Harper v. Hidalgo et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MAMIE L. HARPER,
Plaintiff,
versus
LINA HIDALGO, et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-06380
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
This action was filed on behalf of Mamie L. Harper,
who is deceased, alleging that Defendants “all played a
part in extorting state property taxes” from her. Dkt 1 at 3.
The complaint was filed and signed by Darrell J. Harper,
who also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Dkt 2.
Pending is a Memorandum and Recommendation by
Magistrate Judge Yvonne Y. Ho, recommending that the
filings be stricken and the case be dismissed on two
grounds, being (i) Darrell J. Harper, who is not a licensed
attorney, may not represent the decedent, and (ii) he has
been designated a vexatious litigant by the Supreme Court
of Texas, and a preclusion order bars him initiating new
litigation in this district without prior permission. Dkt 7;
see Dkt 7 at 4 (preclusion order).
Plaintiff filed objections. Dkt 8. He contends that the
Memorandum and Recommendation (i) exceeds the
authority of the Magistrate Judge in the absence of his
consent, (ii) is tainted by bias and a lack of impartiality,
(iii) misapplies constitutional and statutory law, and
(iv) rests on erroneous factual assumptions and procedural
improprieties. Ibid.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 04, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-06380 Document 9 Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
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
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).
Upon de novo review and determination, the objections
lack merit. For example, the objections do not contest
either (i) the existence of the preclusion order, or (ii) that
Harper, who isn’t a licensed attorney, may not represent
the decedent. The Magistrate Judge thus appropriately
determined that case must be dismissed.
The objections by Plaintiff to the Memorandum and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are OVERRULED.
Dkt 8.
No clear error otherwise 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 7.
All filings by Darrell Harper are STRICKEN, and this
case is DISMISSED for violating the preclusion order.
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as
moot. Dkt 2.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
May 04, 2026
Case 4:25-cv-06380 Document 9 Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2