The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT June 10, 2026
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
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
1 / 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). The objection is
OVERRULED.
2 / 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
3 / 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 Hospital, 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 fourth 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
4 / 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 tenth 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
5 / 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 supporting 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 Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
ORDERED on June 10, 2026.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6/6