Jones et al v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DAVIONA JONES and
GREGORY WASHINGTON,
JR,
Plaintiffs,
versus
SELECT PORTFOLIO
SERVICING, INC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:26-cv-00644
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiffs Daviona Jones and Gregory Washington, Jr.
proceed here pro se. They initiated this action in state
court, seeking to avoid foreclosure on residential property
located in Katy, Texas. Dkt 1-4 (original petition).
Plaintiffs allege that they submitted a “Qualified Written
Request . . . and Notice of Error pursuant to 12 USC
§2605(e) and 12 CFR §§1024-35-36, requesting critical
servicing and ownership documentation,” but have not
received an adequate response. After Defendant Select
Portfolio Servicing, Inc, removed the action to this Court,
Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to temporary
restraining order and application for injunctive relief. See
Dkt 2.
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Christina A. Bryan. Dkt 4. She issued a
Memorandum and Recommendation recommending that
Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order be
denied because the motion failed to demonstrate that any
“foreclosure is imminent” or that this action is ripe for
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 31, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00644 Document 10 Filed 03/31/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
adjudication. Dkt 5 at 3–4. This in turn undermined
Plaintiffs’ showing on all four elements needed for issuance
of a temporary restraining order.
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).
Plaintiffs filed objections. Dkt 7. They claim that the
Magistrate Judge applied an overly narrow view of
“imminence” in this context and did not fully address the
likelihood of success of their claims under the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act. They further maintain that
this action is ripe for review, and that denial of the motion
without hearing was premature.
Upon de novo review and determination, Plaintiffs’
objections lack merit. The Magistrate Judge correctly
determined that Plaintiffs only allege Defendant has
“continued foreclosure activity or threatened foreclosure,”
and thus, “fail to assert sufficient facts to show that
foreclosure is imminent.” Dkt 5 at 2–3. Though Plaintiffs
suggest that such determination was based on an “overly
narrow view” of imminence, they provide no legal support
for that assertion. See Dkt 7. And, for reasons set forth in
the Memorandum and Recommendation, failure to
demonstrate that foreclosure is imminent undermines
their showing on all four TRO elements. See id at 3–4.
The objections fail to otherwise demonstrate legal error
on the part of the Magistrate Judge.
The objections by Plaintiffs to the Memorandum and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are OVERRULED.
Dkt 7.
Case 4:26-cv-00644 Document 10 Filed 03/31/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
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 5.
The motion by Plaintiffs Daviona Jones and Gregory
Washington, Jr. for temporary restraining order is
DENIED. Dkt 2.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
__________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
March 31, 2026
Case 4:26-cv-00644 Document 10 Filed 03/31/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3