IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

SHANEEQUA Q. RANDALL, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 3:25-CV-1925-L-BK § MEDICAL CITY LAS COLINAS, § § Defendant. §

ORDER

On July 31, 2025, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 7) was entered, recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint do not support the existence of jurisdiction based on either a federal question or diversity of citizenship. The magistrate judge further recommends that the court not give Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, an opportunity to amend her pleadings because her medical malpractice allegations could not support federal question jurisdiction even if amended, and Plaintiff acknowledges that she and Defendant are both citizens of Texas, which defeats jurisdiction based on diversity. No objections to the Report were filed as of the date of this order, and the deadline for filing objections has expired. Having considered the pleadings, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and it accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court dismisses without prejudice this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Further, Plaintiff has not sought to amend her pleadings to cure the jurisdictional deficiencies identified or filed objections to the Report, and the court determines that any attempt at amendment would be futile. The court, therefore, will not allow Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her pleadings. The court prospectively certifies that any appeal of this action by Plaintiff would not be taken in good faith. See

(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). In support of this certification, the court incorporates by reference the Report. See Baugh v. Taylor,

, 202 and n.21 (Sth Cir. 1997). Based on the Report, the court concludes that any appeal of this action by Plaintiff would present no legal point of arguable merit and would, therefore, be frivolous. Howard v. King,

, 220 (Sth Cir. 1983). In the event of an appeal, Plaintiff may challenge this certification by filing a separate motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with the clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See Baugh,

; Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). It is so ordered this 10th day of September, 2025.

United States District Judge

Order — Page 2