LeRoy Gilliam v. Ed Gonzalez, Noe Diaz, Sherman Eagleton, and Sean Teare

March 31, 2026 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION LEROY GILLIAM, § CIVIL ACTION NUMBER Plaintiff, § 4:25-cv-05083 § § versus § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § ED GONZALEZ, et al, § Defendants. § 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 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.

kad.

Honorable Charles Eskridge United States District Judge