Field-Dewayne Williams v. Missouri City Municipal Court, et al.

March 16, 2026 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION FIELD-DEWAYNE § CIVIL ACTION NUMBER WILLIAMS, § 4:25-cv-03869 Plaintiff, § § § versus § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § MISSOURI CITY MUNICIPAL § COURT, et al, § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Field-Dewayne Williams proceeds here pro se.

He was charged with failure to identify to a police officer in the Municipal Court of Missouri City, Texas. See Dkt 9-1 (criminal complaint). He attempts to remove that matter to federal court. See Dkt 1 (notice of removal). The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge Richard Bennett. Dkt 5.

Defendant Missouri City Municipal Court moved to remand, arguing that removal was improper and that subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking. Dkt 9 at 4–6. Judge Bennett entered a Memorandum and Recommendation recommending that the motion be granted. Dkt 11. He found that the notice of removal didn’t present grounds under 28 USC §1455 for removal of this action to federal court. Id at 2–5.

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).

Plaintiff filed objections. Dkt 31. On de novo review and determination, they are scattershot and entirely lack merit. Plaintiff largely rehashes the factual background of the underlying criminal matter. See id at 2-4. He nowhere presents proper grounds for subject-matter jurisdiction to exist in federal court.

The objections by Plaintiff Field-Dewayne Williams to the Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are OVERRULED. Dkt 31.

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 30.

The motion by Defendant Missouri City Municipal Court to remand is GRANTED. Dkt 9.

Any other pending motions or requests for relief are DENIED AS MOOT. For example, see Dkts 4, 10, 18 & 34.

This action is REMANDED to the Municipal Court of Missouri City, Texas.

SO ORDERED.

Signed on March 16, 2026, at Houston, Texas.

Z.

Honorable Charles Egkridge United States District Judge