govinfo:USCOURTS-txsd-4_25-cv-03547-3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
HOUSTON DIVISION 
 
NAMEAH HELAIRE, 
  Plaintiff, 
 
 
 versus 
 
 
ANTONIO VILLAREAL,  
et al, 
  Defendants. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§
§ 
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER  
4:25-cv-03547 
 
 
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE 
 
ORDER ADOPTING  
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION 
Plaintiff Nameah Helaire proceeds here pro se . She 
brings claims for various violations of her civil rights under 
42 USC §1983. See Dkt 1 at 4. The matter was referred for 
disposition to Magistrate Judge Yvonne Ho. Dkt 4. 
Pending is a motion by Defendant Antonio Villareal to 
dismiss the claims against him based on qualified 
immunity and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure. See Dkt 12 at 4–7. Plaintiff failed to respond to 
the motion. Prior order adopted a Memorandum and 
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge recommending 
that the claims against certain unserved Defendants be 
dismissed without prejudice. See Dkt 37; see also Dkt 25 
(Memorandum and Recommendation).  
Judge Ho recommends that the motion to dismiss be 
granted and that all claims against Villareal be dismissed 
with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) and 28 USC 
§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). See Dkt 41 at 15. She notes that Plaintiff 
failed to respond to the motion and thus failed to rebut the 
asserted defense of qualified immunity. Id at 6–7. She also 
determined that Defendant is entitled to qualified 
immunity as to Plaintiff’s false arrest claims, such claims 
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 04, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03547     Document 42     Filed 06/03/26 in TXSD     Page 1 of 2
2 
 
are also time-barred, and the complaint otherwise fails to 
state plausible claims against Villareal  under federal or 
state law. See id at 7–15. 
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 Memorand um 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 41. 
The motion by Defendant Antonio Villareal to dismiss 
is GRANTED. Dkt 12. 
All claims against Defendant Antonio Villareal are 
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Amtaro Montoya 
and Angel August continue. 
SO ORDERED. 
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas. 
 
 
      ___________________________ 
      Honorable Charles Eskridge 
      United States District Judge  
 
                                           
June 03, 2026
Case 4:25-cv-03547     Document 42     Filed 06/03/26 in TXSD     Page 2 of 2

Passage view · GavelSight