Golden v. Westlake Finance Services, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
KEVIN R. GOLDEN,
Plaintiff,
versus
WESTLAKE FINANCE
SERVICES, LLC and
WESTLAKE DIRECT, LLC,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:24-cv-04093
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Kevin R. Golden proceeds here pro se. He filed
a complaint against Defendants Westlake Finance
Services, LLC, and Westlake Direct, LLC, asserting
violations of the Fair Credit Billing Act, Truth in Lending
Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act. Dkt 64 at 56–61, 66–71, 73–74 (second amended
complaint). He also states claims for breach of contract,
fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud, fraudulent induce-
ment, and fraud by nondisclosure under Texas law. Id at
61–66, 71–73. He seeks injunctive relief as well as
compensatory and punitive damages. Id at 75–76.
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Richard Bennett. Dkt 5. A prior motion by Plaintiff
for a preliminary injunction was previously denied upon
his recommendation. Dkt 52; see also Dkt 28 (motion).
Plaintiff filed a motion that Judge Bennett construed as a
motion for reconsideration. See Dkts 56 & 70 at 1 n 2. He
issued a Memorandum & Recommendation in which he
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 23, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-04093 Document 77 Filed 01/22/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
recommended the motion for reconsideration be denied.
Dkt 70 at 5.
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 70.
The motion by Plaintiff Kevin R. Golden for
reconsideration is DENIED. Dkt 56.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
January 22, 2026
Case 4:24-cv-04093 Document 77 Filed 01/22/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2