Dennis v. State of Texas

Case: 25-20409 Document: 62-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-20409 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ July 13, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce Jeffery James Dennis, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellant, versus State of Texas; Federal Mortgage Association, also known as Fannie Mae; Rocket Mortgage, L.L.C., formerly known as Quicken Loans, L.L.C.; Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Incorporated, also known as MERS; Amy Colvin, Public Notary of MERS; Katie Olson, Public Notary for Rocket Mortgage; Teneshia Hudspeth, Harris County Clerk; Bob Wolfe, Judge, Harris County Precinct 5, Place 2; C. Elliot Thornton, Judge, in her administrative capacity of the 164th District Court and personal capacity; Alan Robles, Clerk of Court for the 164th District Court; Jermaine Thomas, Judge, in his official capacity as Judge of Harris County Court 3; Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General; Jane Nelson, Texas Secretary of State; Glenn Hegar, Texas Comptroller, Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:25-CV-102 ______________________________ Before Davis, Stewart, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Case: 25-20409 Document: 62-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2026

No. 25-20409

Per Curiam: * Jeffery James Dennis appeals the district court’s dismissal of his second amended complaint, contending that the district court should have (1) permitted an accounting related to his purchase of a property and the eventual foreclosure on that property before dismissal and (2) granted leave to file an amended complaint. The district court correctly determined that all of Dennis’s claims depended on a flawed premise regarding the effect of his Uniform Commercial Code filings, see Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 9.109(d)(11), and we are unpersuaded that it erred in dismissing those claims without an accounting, see Allen v. Hays, 65 F.4th 736, 743 (5th Cir. 2023). Dennis also fails to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend. See Hutcheson v. Dallas Cnty., 994 F.3d 477, 483–84 (5th Cir. 2021).

AFFIRMED.