Tremeka Davis v. Sean Combs, et al.

S.D. Texas

Tremeka Davis v. Sean Combs, et al.

DecidedOctober 30, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-02983

StatusUnknown

This text of Tremeka Davis v. Sean Combs, et al. (Tremeka Davis v. Sean Combs, 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

Tremeka Davis v. Sean Combs, et al., (S.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

October 31, 2025 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

TREMEKA DAVIS, § CIVIL ACTION NO Plaintiff, § 4:25-cv-02983 § § vs. § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § SEAN COMBS, et al, § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Tremeka Davis proceeds here pro se. She filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Sean Combs (a/k/a Diddy), Shawn Carter (a/k/a Jay-Z), Christopher B. Bridges (a/k/a Ludacris), Ex Bishop Thomas Dexter Jakes, Sr. (a/k/a TD Jakes), Beyonce Knowles, Gregory Williams, and Michael Davis. Dkt 1. The case was transferred to the Southern District of Texas. Dkt 3. Plaintiff has since filed a motion for protective order against Sean Combs. Dkt 8. Pending is a Memorandum and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Christina Bryan, recommending that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice because it is frivolous and fails to state a claim for relief. Dkt 16. Judge Bryan also recommends that the motion by Plaintiff for protective order be denied. Ibid. 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 16. The complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Dkt 1. The motion by Plaintiff Tremeka Davis for protective order is DENIED AS MOOT. Dkt 8. SO ORDERED. Signed on October 28, 2025, at Houston, Texas.

Uae. Hon Charles Eskridge United States District Judge

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

October 31, 2025 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

TREMEKA DAVIS, § CIVIL ACTION NO Plaintiff, § 4:25-cv-02983 § § vs. § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § SEAN COMBS, et al, § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Tremeka Davis proceeds here pro se. She filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Sean Combs (a/k/a Diddy), Shawn Carter (a/k/a Jay-Z), Christopher B. Bridges (a/k/a Ludacris), Ex Bishop Thomas Dexter Jakes, Sr. (a/k/a TD Jakes), Beyonce Knowles, Gregory Williams, and Michael Davis. Dkt 1. The case was transferred to the Southern District of Texas. Dkt 3. Plaintiff has since filed a motion for protective order against Sean Combs. Dkt 8. Pending is a Memorandum and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Christina Bryan, recommending that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice because it is frivolous and fails to state a claim for relief. Dkt 16. Judge Bryan also recommends that the motion by Plaintiff for protective order be denied. Ibid. 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 16. The complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Dkt 1. The motion by Plaintiff Tremeka Davis for protective order is DENIED AS MOOT. Dkt 8. SO ORDERED. Signed on October 28, 2025, at Houston, Texas.

Uae. Hon Charles Eskridge United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tremeka Davis v. Sean Combs, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tremeka-davis-v-sean-combs-et-al-txsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack