Ernest Hudson v. Navy Federal Credit Union, et al.

Opinion

July 01, 2026 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

ERNEST HUDSON, § CIVIL ACTION NUMBER Plaintiff, § 4:26-cv-00072 § § versus § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT § UNION, et al, § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Ernest Hudson proceeds here pro se. His original complaint stated various claims under federal and state law against Defendants Navy Federal Credit Union, Capital One Auto Finance, and Equifax Information Services, LLC. Dkt 1 at 1–2. He later filed two amended complaints, both of which omit mention of either Navy Federal or Equifax as defendants. Dkts 8 & 15. Navy Federal moved to dismiss claims against it under Rule 12(b)(6). Dkt 30. The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge Christina A. Bryan. Dkt 7. She recommends that all claims against Navy Federal and Equifax be dismissed because they are no longer listed as defendants in the operative second amended complaint. Dkt 35 at 3–4. She further recommends that the motion to dismiss by Navy Federal be terminated as moot. Id at 4. 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 Memorandum 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 35. The claims against Defendants Navy Federal Credit Union and Equifax Information Services, LLC, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 USC §1915(e)(2)(B)Gi). The motion by Navy Federal Credit Union to dismiss is DENIED as moot. Dkt 30. Claims against Defendant Capital One Auto Finance remain pending. SO ORDERED. Signed on _ June 25, 2026 _, at Houston, Texas.

BE. Honorable Charles Eskridge United States District Judge