Shaerica L. Walder v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: February 18, 2026
• Docket: 6:25-cv-00120
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:25-cv-00120 Shaerica L. Walder, Plaintiff, v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant.

ORDER Plaintiff brought this action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et. seq. Doc. 106 at 1. The case was referred to a magistrate judge. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judg- ment. Doc. 80. The magistrate judge issued a report recommend- ing that the court deny that motion. Doc. 138 at 9. Plaintiff filed written objections. Doc. 140. The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). “Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Vettles ». Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass vy. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Furthermore, a party’s entitlement to de novo review does not en- title it to raise arguments that were not presented to the magis- trate judge without a compelling reason. See Cupit v. Whitley, 28 F.3d 532, 535 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff objects to the report on three grounds: (1) that any denial of plaintiff’s motion should be without prejudice to refil- ing; (2) that any denial of plaintiff’s motion should not be consid- ered a resolution on the merits; and (3) that plaintiff’s citation of fictitious cases was unintentional, not due to bad faith, and with- out intent to deceive. Doc. 140.

-l-

First, the report did not specifically recommend denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment with prejudice to refil- ing same. See generally Doc. 138. However, there is no need to ad- dress plaintiff’s objection. “[A] trial court may reconsider a pre- viously denied motion for summary judgment even in the absence of new evidentiary material.” Conkling v. Turner, 18 F.3d 1285, 1296 (5th Cir. 1994). Because the report did not clearly recom- mend denying plaintiff’s motion with prejudice to refiling, plain- tiff is free to refile a summary judgment motion by the court’s March 30, 2026 dispositive motion deadline. Doc. 132 at 3. Second, denying a summary judgment motion is not a resolu- tion on the merits. See Landry v. G.B.A., 762 F.2d 462, 464 (Sth Cir. 1985) (“[T]he denial of a motion for summary judgment is not the equivalent of the entry of judgment against the movant.”). Thus, plaintiff’s second objection is meritless. As to plaintiff’s final objection, the court appreciates plain- tiff’s clarification that the citing of fictitious cases was “uninten- tional, not made in bad faith, and not intended to mislead the Court.” Doc. 140 at 2. However, plaintiff is still warned “that fur- ther citation to nonexistent cases and noncompliance with Local Rule CV-11(g) may result in sanctions, including her pleadings and other papers being struck, filing restrictions, dismissal of her claims, and monetary penalties.” Doc. 138 at 8. Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report de novo and finding no error, the court overrules plaintiff’s objections and ac- cepts the report’s findings and recommendations. Plaintiff’s mo- tion for summary judgment (Doc. 80) is denied without prejudice to refiling. Plaintiff may file another motion for summary judg- ment by March 30, 2026. See Doc. 132 at 3. So ordered by the court on February 18, 2026. Cobaher —_facbok BARKER United States District Judge

-2-