Case Information
*1 Case 4:25-cv-01128-P Document 30 Filed 10/31/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID 440
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION E LISHA H OLLOWAY , Plaintiff, v. No. 4:25-cv-01128-P B RYAN P OLK , ET AL ,
Defendants. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On October 30, 2025, the United States Magistrate Judge issued two separate Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendations (“FCR”) in this case. ECF No. 26 and 27. The first FCR recommended that Plaintiff (1) be declared a vexatious litigant; (2) be warned that monetary sanctions may be imposed for future vexatious litigation considered to be abusive and harassing in nature; (3) be ordered to obtain leave to court by filing a motion before she is permitted to file any additional complaints in this district or remove any cases to this district. The second FCR recommended the Court sua sponte dismiss this case with prejudice for being frivolous as well as for failing to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Id. at 4. Plaintiff filed a single Objection to both FCRs on October 30, 2025. ECF No. 28. The Court accordingly conducted a de novo review of both of the FCRs. As detailed below, the Court will ACCEPT and ADOPT the reasoning in both of the Magistrate Judge’s FCRs and OVERRULE Plaintiff’s Objections.
Plaintiff raises the following objections to both of the Magistrate Judge’s FCRs: • Objection to Insensitive and Erroneous Findings • Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Misapplication • Anti-Injunction Act Exception
*2 Case 4:25-cv-01128-P Document 30 Filed 10/31/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID 441 • Plausibility Standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) The Court OVERRULES these objections because, just as the
Magistrate Judge recognized regarding Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, all of Plaintiff’s objections are frivolous and “clearly baseless, a category encompassing allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional.” Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Thus, having conducted a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s first FCR (ECF No. 26) and Plaintiff’s Objections, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Conclusions as its own. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff (1) be declared a vexatious litigant; (2) be warned that monetary sanctions may be imposed for future vexatious litigation considered to be abusive and harassing in nature; (3) be ordered to obtain leave to court by filing a motion before she is permitted to file any additional complaints in this district or remove any cases to this district.
As to the Magistrate Judge’s second FCR (ECF No. 27), we note that because Plaintiff appears pro se, her pleadings are entitled to a more liberal construction than those prepared by attorneys. See Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Here, however, Plaintiff has already had the opportunity to file three separate complaints, and no amount of liberal construction can create a viable legal claim. Thus, having conducted a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s second FCR, and Plaintiff’s Objections, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Conclusions as its own. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for being frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
SO ORDERED on this 31st day of October 2025. 2