Shalaetha Preston-Caver and Quinton Caver v. Prestige Default Services, LLC, et al

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Texas
DecidedOctober 29, 2025
Docket4:24-cv-04850
StatusUnknown

This text of Shalaetha Preston-Caver and Quinton Caver v. Prestige Default Services, LLC, et al (Shalaetha Preston-Caver and Quinton Caver v. Prestige Default Services, LLC, et al) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Shalaetha Preston-Caver and Quinton Caver v. Prestige Default Services, LLC, et al, (S.D. Tex. 2025).

Opinion

October 30, 2025 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

SHALAETHA PRESTON- § CIVIL ACTION NO CAVER and QUINTON § 4:24-cv-04850 CAVER, § Plaintiffs, § § § vs. § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § PRESTIGE DEFAULT § SERVICES, LLC, et al, § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiffs Shalaetha Preston-Caver and Quinton Caver filed a combined motion to withdraw prior filings and request expedited ruling on the motion to remand. Dkt 39. Pending is a Memorandum and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Richard W. Bennett, recommending the motion be denied because the purported mistake by Plaintiffs didn’t warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt 40. 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). None of the parties filed objections. No clear error otherwise 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 40. The combined motion by Plaintiffs Shalaetha Preston- Caver and Quinton Caver to withdraw prior filings and request expedited ruling on the motion to amend is DENIED. Dkt 39. SO ORDERED. Signed on October 29, 2025 , at Houston, Texas.

Hon Charles Eskrid United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Guillory v. PPG Industries, Inc.
434 F.3d 303 (Fifth Circuit, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Shalaetha Preston-Caver and Quinton Caver v. Prestige Default Services, LLC, et al, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shalaetha-preston-caver-and-quinton-caver-v-prestige-default-services-txsd-2025.