govinfo:USCOURTS-txsd-2_25-cv-00252-1

1 / 6 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION 
 
 
ERICK BLACKWOOD-HEAD, 
 
              Plaintiff, 
 
VS. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00252  
  
COMCAST CORPORATION (NBC 
UNIVERSAL), et al., 
 
              Defendants. 
 
 
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION  
Plaintiff Erick Blackwood-Head, proceeding pro se, brings this suit alleging that six 
media companies —Comcast, Disney, News Corp, Paramount, Warner Brothers, and 
Amazon—have conspired to routinely surveil him, censor his online presence, and engage 
in monopolistic practices. On March 25, 2026 , United States Magistrate Judge Julie K. 
Hampton issued her Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R), recommending that the 
Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice. 
D.E. 13. Plaintiff was  provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the 
Magistrate Judge’s M&R. Fed. R. Civ. P.  72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff filed his 
objections on April 7, 2026. D.E. 18.  
STANDARD OF REVIEW 
 A district court must review de novo  any portion of a magistrate judge’s proposed 
findings and recommendations on dispositive matters to which the parties have filed 
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 10, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:25-cv-00252     Document 22     Filed 06/10/26 in TXSD     Page 1 of 6
2 / 6 
specific, written objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Objections must point out with sufficient 
particularity any alleged error in the magistrate judge’s analysis; otherwise, they do not 
constitute proper objections and will not be considered. Id. After considering proper 
objections, the district court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, those 
portions of the proposed findings and recommendations. Fed. R. Civ. P.  72(b). As to any 
portion for which no objection is filed, a district court reviews for clearly erroneous factual 
findings and conclusions of law. United States v. Wilson , 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 
1989) (per curiam). 
DISCUSSION 
 First, Plaintiff objects that the Magistrate Judge erred in her characterization of 
subject matter jurisdiction. D.E. 18 at pp. 2-3. He argues that “[w]here a complaint invokes 
cognizable federal statutory causes of action, jurisdiction exists —the merits question is 
whether the claim is sufficiently pleaded.” Id. Plaintiff’s objection recognizes and 
acknowledges that cases may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction when the federal claims 
are wholly insubstantial and have no plausible foundation. Id. at p. 3 (citing Carmichael v. 
United Techs. Corp ., 835 F.2d 109, 114 (5th Cir. 1988) ). The Court  finds that the 
Magistrate Judge did not err in concluding  that Plaintiff’s claims and allegations lack a 
plausible foundation. Thus, dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate. 
See Maringo v. McGuirk , 268 F. App ’x 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2008) . T he objection is 
OVERRULED. 
Case 2:25-cv-00252     Document 22     Filed 06/10/26 in TXSD     Page 2 of 6
3 / 6 
 In his second and sixth objections , Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge erred 
in stating that there were “zero factual allegations” supporting Plaintiff’s claims . D.E. 18 
at pp. 4-5, 10-11. Throughout his objections, Plaintiff reiterates many of the allegations in 
his amended complaint. He summarizes his claims, the allegations he asserts support those 
claims, and his alleged injuries. Id. He also makes new allegations. And he claims that a 
related case he filed survived the screening stage, which he contends shows that his claims 
here are factually supported and plausible. Id. at pp. 6-7. 
However, as the Magistrate Judge concluded, there are no specific, plausible factual 
allegations that support the actual claims Plaintiff has brought in this lawsuit. Plaintiff’s 
allegations are either irrelevant or insufficient to state the claims he raises. Moreover, the 
related case he says survived screening, Case No. 2:26 -cv-00090, has not yet been 
screened. Accordingly, these objections are OVERRULED.    
 In his third and eighth objections, Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge  
erroneously relied on Smith v. Osborne, No. 4:18-CV-906-ALM-CAN, 2019 WL 4383337 
(E.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2019), recommendation adopted , No. 4:18 -CV-906, 2019 WL 
4345735 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2019) . He contends that the plaintiff in Smith presented no 
documentary support for his claims that the defendants had engaged in a vast conspiracy  
to “cook” him and his family and track their movements . D.E. 18, p. 7. He cites to three 
government sources that he claims show that the kind of “directed -energy weapon” 
referenced in Smith exists and has been deployed. Id. at pp. 7-8. He argues that Smith has 
Case 2:25-cv-00252     Document 22     Filed 06/10/26 in TXSD     Page 3 of 6
4 / 6 
been abrogated as a “factually superseded precedent” as a result of these technological 
developments and government documents. Id. at pp. 15-18.  
 Smith was one of several cases cited in the M&R to support the conclusion that 
Plaintiff’s claims are “of the delusional variety” and should therefore be dismissed. The 
M&R also cites to Lavender v. Parkland Hosp ital, No. 3:19 -CV-2549-L-BN, 2020 WL 
7029913, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2020), recommendation adopted, No. 3:19-CV-2549-
L-BN, 2020 WL 7027468 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2020) , which explains that district courts 
may dismiss “claims that are ‘clearly baseless,’ including ‘claims describing fantastic or 
delusional scenarios.’” Lavender, 2020 WL 7029913, at *3 (quoting Starrett v. U.S. Dep’t 
of Def., 763 F. App’x 383, 383-84 (5th Cir. 2019)). The principle invoked by the Magistrate 
Judge is sufficiently supported even without relying on Smith. Plaintiff’s third and eighth 
objections are therefore OVERRULED. 
In his f ourth objection, Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge failed to take 
judicial notice of the various government documents cited throughout his  amended 
complaint. D.E. 18, p. 8. He asserts that this Court must take notice of the documents cited 
in his objections. Id. at pp. 8-9. Even considering the documents cited in his objections, the 
Court concludes, as the Magistrate Judge did, that Plaintiff’s claims lack plausible 
foundation. The objection is OVERRULED.  
 In his fifth objection, Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge’s characterization of 
Plaintiff’s litigation history improperly prejudiced the analysis. Id. at p. 9. The Court 
Case 2:25-cv-00252     Document 22     Filed 06/10/26 in TXSD     Page 4 of 6
5 / 6 
concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s analysis was not prejudiced against Plaintiff. Thus, 
the objection is OVERRULED. 
 In his seventh objection, Plaintiff argues that he should have been granted leave to 
amend his complaint. Id. at pp. 11-12. He contends that a district court is required to give 
a pro se plaintiff at least one opportunity to amend before dismissing the complaint with 
prejudice. Id. Plaintiff has already amended his complaint once. D.E. 1, 12. And additional 
leave is not warranted where Plaintiff has failed to articulate any allegations that would 
cure the defect in his pleading. United States ex rel. Willard v. Humana Health Plan of Tex. 
Inc., 336 F.3d 375, 387 (5th Cir. 2003). The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to 
articulate allegations that would cure the defect in his pleading. Therefore, leave to amend 
is not warranted and the objection is OVERRULED. 
 In his ninth objection , Plaintiff mentions  for the first time two federal criminal 
prosecutions against defendants who he claims have been accused of engaging in hacking 
operations against climate activists in connection with ExxonMobil. D.E. 18, pp. 16 -17. 
Plaintiff fails to explain how these prosecutions are relevant to his claims in this case.  The 
Court concludes that these allegations do not provide the plausible foundation lacking for 
his claims , because they do not support the alleged conspiracy on which he bases his 
claims. The objection is OVERRULED. 
In his t enth objection and in part of his first objection, Plaintiff argues that the 
Magistrate Judge did not specifically address his monopolization claims. Id. at pp. 18-20. 
The Magistrate Judge concluded that all of Plaintiff’s claims, including his monopolization 
Case 2:25-cv-00252     Document 22     Filed 06/10/26 in TXSD     Page 5 of 6
6 / 6 
claims, lack sufficient factual allegations. D.E. 13, p. 10. Even if Defendants comprise 90% 
of the media content distribution, Plaintiff has not stated specific facts support ing his 
allegations of a wide-ranging conspiracy. The Magistrate Judge’s conclusion encompassed 
Plaintiff’s monopolization claims. The objection is thus OVERRULED. 
CONCLUSION 
Having reviewed the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations set 
forth in the Magistrate Judge’s M&R, as well as Plaintiff’s objections and all other relevant 
documents in the record, and having made a de novo review of the portions of the 
Magistrate Judge’s M&R to which objections were specifically directed, the Court 
OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections and ADOPTS as its own the findings and 
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge (D.E. 13). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES 
without prejudice Plaintiff’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 
 ORDERED on June 10, 2026. 
 
_______________________________ 
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
Case 2:25-cv-00252     Document 22     Filed 06/10/26 in TXSD     Page 6 of 6

Passage view · GavelSight