Isom v. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

Full title: TYESHA N. ISOM v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

Date published: Jun 2, 2021

CIVIL NO. 4:20-CV-948-SDJ (E.D. Tex. Jun. 2, 2021)

Opinion

CIVIL 4:20-CV-948-SDJ

06-02-2021

TYESHA N. ISOM v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL.

SEAN D. JORDAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SEAN D. JORDAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Came on for consideration the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), this matter having been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On April 28, 2021, the Report of the Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. #5), was entered containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that pro se Plaintiff Tyesha N. Isom's (1) claims be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (Dkt. #3), be denied. Having assessed the Report and considered Isom's Objections, (Dkt. #6), the Court determines that the Magistrate Judge's Report should be adopted.

A party who files timely written objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation is entitled to a de novo review of those findings or recommendations to which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2)-(3). Isom filed her Complaint on December 11, 2020, asserting unspecified claims against various government agencies. (Dkt. #3). On April 28, 2021, the Magistrate Judge sua sponte recommended Isom's claims be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. #5). On May 2020, Isom filed Objections. (Dkt. #6). Isom does not assert any specific legal objections. Rather, her filing further demonstrates that dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is warranted. There is no plausible foundation for Isom's allegations. See Carmichael v. United Techs. Corp., 835 F.2d 109, 114 (5th Cir. 1988). Without any discernable “federal question suitable for decision, ” Isom's case must be dismissed without prejudice. See Vasaturo v. Peterka, 203 F.Supp.3d 42, 44 (D.D.C. 2016). Isom's Objections, (Dkt. #6), are overruled.

CONCLUSION

It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff Tyesha N. Isom's claims are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff Tyesha N. Isom's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (Dkt. #3), is DENIED.

So ORDERED.