Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

PURNELL ELLIOTT WILLIAMS, § No. 1:25-CV-2122-DAE-SH

§

Plaintiff, §

§

vs. §

§

REALPAGE, INC., §

§

Defendant. §

________________________________

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND (2)

DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) filed by

Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower on February 17, 2026. (Dkt. # 6.) On February

24, 2026, Plaintiff Purnell Elliott Williams (“Plaintiff” or “Williams”) filed his

Objections. (Dkt. # 7.) The Court finds these matters suitable for disposition

without a hearing. After reviewing the Report and Objections, the Court ADOPTS

Judge Hightower’s recommendations and DISMISSES WITHOUT

PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant RealPage, Inc. (“Defendant” or

“RealPage”).

BACKGROUND

The Court recites the facts as stated by Judge Hightower. Plaintiff has

filed twelve lawsuits in the Court over the past decade.1 Five of Plaintiff’s

lawsuits have been dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).2 Three

more have been dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).3 Judge

Pitman and the undersigned warned Plaintiff that filing frivolous claims and

1 Williams v. Sparks, No. 1:16-cv-01302-LY (W.D. Tex. Dec. 12, 2016); Williams

v. United States, No. 1:17-cv-00913-RP (W.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2017); Williams v.

Navy Fed. Credit Union., No. 1:22-cv-00629-LY (W.D. Tex. June 29, 2022);

Williams v. Short (“Short I”), No. 1:23-CV-496-RP, 2023 WL 5517578 (W.D.

Tex. Aug. 25, 2023); Williams v. Short (“Short II”), No. 1:23-CV-1069-RP, 2023

WL 8242476 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2023); Williams v. Navy Fed. Credit Union.,

No. 1:23-cv-01132-RP-DH (W.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2023); Williams v. Garcia, No.

1:24-CV-1071-DAE, 2025 WL 2021027 (W.D. Tex. July 9, 2025); Williams v.

LNVN LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00106-ADA (W.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2025); Williams v.

Greystar Real Est. Partners, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00159-ADA (W.D. Tex. Feb. 3,

2025); Williams v. Sage, No. 1:25-cv-02061-RP (W.D. Tex. Dec. 29, 2025);

Williams v. RealPage, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-02122-DAE-SH (W.D. Tex. Dec. 29,

2025); Williams v. Hernandez, No. 1:25-cv-02135-DAE-ML (W.D. Tex. Dec. 29,

2025). Williams also has filed three suits in the Eastern District of Louisiana, all

dismissed under § 1915(e)(2) or Rule 12(b)(6): Williams v. Att’y Gen., No. CV

24-1554, 2025 WL 388476 (E.D. La. Feb. 4, 2025); Williams v. Dep’t of Soc.

Servs., No. CV 23-2851, 2023 WL 7688754 (E.D. La. Nov. 15, 2023); Williams v.

La. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., No. 2:22-cv-01129-WBV-DPC, Dkt. # 20 (E.D. La. Apr.

25, 2022).

2 Sage, No. 1:25-cv-02061-RP, Dkt. # 5; Short I, 2023 WL 8242476; Short II,

2023 WL 5517578; Navy Fed. Credit Union., No. 1:22-cv-00629-LY, Dkt. # 7;

Williams v. United States, No. 1:17-cv-00913-RP, Dkt. # 9.

3 LNVN, No. 1:25-cv-00106-ADA, Dkt. # 64; Garcia, 2025 WL 2021027; Sparks,

No. 1:16-cv-01302-LY, Dkt. # 12.

otherwise abusing his access to the judicial system would result in sanctions.

Garcia, 2025 WL 2021027, at *6; Short I, 2023 WL 8242476, at *1. On January

23, 2026, Judge Albright permanently enjoined him “from filing any pleadings,

motions, or other papers in this district—other than a Notice of Appeal—without

prior written consent of a District or Magistrate Judge.” LNVN, No. 1:25-cv-

00106-ADA, Dkt. # 64 at 4. Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff now brings this suit

against Defendant RealPage, Inc., asserting claims under the Sherman Antitrust

Act and Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and for “retaliation and

discrimination” and “gross negligence and housing instability.” (Dkt. # 1 at 3–4.)

He seeks compensatory and punitive damages totaling $24 million. (Id. at 4.)

On February 17, 2026, Judge Hightower issued her Report,

recommending dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiff’s claims in light of

Plaintiff’s co-pending litigation against Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC, and

Belkorp Oaks, owners of his former residence against whom he has alleged

duplicative claims. (Dkt. # 6 at 4 (citing Williams v. Greystar Real Est. Partners,

LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00159-ADA).) On February 24, 2026, Plaintiff filed his

Objections. (Dkt. # 7.)

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s Objections do not state any real objection to the Report.

Rather, Plaintiff informs the Court of his intent to add RealPage, Inc. as a

defendant in his co-pending litigation, Greystar, No. 1:25-cv-00159-ADA, and

asks that the Court enter any dismissal of the above-captioned case without

prejudice and allow Plaintiff to pursue all claims against RealPage in the co-

pending litigation. (Dkt. # 7 at 1–2.) Since Plaintiff filed his Objections, it appears

that he has in fact amended his complaint to add RealPage as a defendant in the co-

pending litigation. See Greystar, No. 1:25-cv-00159-ADA, Dkt. # 29.

Where, as here, neither party objects to the Magistrate Judge’s

findings, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear error.

United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).

After careful consideration, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s

Report and Recommendation. The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s claims against

Defendant RealPage are duplicative of those pending in the co-pending litigation,

and in light of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint adding RealPage as a co-defendant,

there remains no substantive objections.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons given, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s

Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 6) as the opinion of the Court, and

DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s claims subject to prosecution

of the co-pending duplicative suit. The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to

ENTER JUDGMENT and CLOSE THE CASE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: Austin, Texas, March 26, 2026.

David Alan j

Senior United States District Judge