LaRose v. Hurts et al

U NITED S TATES D ISTRICT C OURT
SOUTHERN D ISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON D IVISION
PSHATOIA LAROSE,
Plaintiff,
versus
JALEN H URTS and
PHILADELPHIA EAGLES ,
LLC,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:24-cv-04843
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
O RDER A DOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Pshatoia LaRose proceeds here pro se. She
sues Defendants Jalen Hurts and Philadelphia Eagles,
LLC. Dkt 1. She brings various claims for, among other
things, unauthorized use of intellectual property, invasion
of privacy, stalking and harassment, and “phone identity
hacks.” Id at 2. The matter was referred for disposition to
Magistrate Judge Yvonne Ho. Dkt 5.
The Eagles and Hurst both moved to dismiss for failure
to state a claim. Dkts 9 & 11. In conjunction with that,
Judge Ho allowed Plaintiff time as requested to retain
counsel, with further order to file an amended complaint.
Hurts withdrew his pending motion, stating intention to
assert res judicata against the amended complaint, but
Plaintiff never thereafter filed one. See Dkt 19 at 4; see also
Dkt 15 at 2 (minute entry noting withdrawal).
Pending 	is 	a 	Memorandum 	and 	Recommendation
recommending that the motion by the Eagles be granted
and that all claims against the Eagles be dismissed with
prejudice. Dkt 19 at 6–10. It further recommends that the
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 14, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-04843 Document 33 Filed 03/13/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
claims against Hurts be dismissed with prejudice sua
sponte. Id at 10–11. These recommendations relied upon
argument that Plaintiff’s claims are equally barred against
both by res judicata. Id at 6–11.
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).
Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the Memorandum and
Recommendation, which is construed here to be objections
to such. Dkt 20. On de novo review and determination, the
objections clearly lack merit. Plaintiff nowhere addresses
the argument that her claims are barred by res judicata.
See id at 1–2. This means that she doesn’t specifically
object 	to 	the 	portion 	of 	the 	Memorandum 	and
Recommendation supporting dismissal of her claims. See
Dkt 19 at 6–11.
The objections by Plaintiff Pshatoia LaRose to the
Memorandum 	and 	Recommendation 	of 	the 	Magistrate
Judge are OVERRULED . Dkt 20.
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 19.
The motion by Defendant Philadelphia Eagles, LLC, to
dismiss is GRANTED . Dkt 9.
All claims asserted by Plaintiff Pshatoia LaRose in this
action are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
A final judgment will enter separately.
Case 4:24-cv-04843 Document 33 Filed 03/13/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
SO ORDERED .
Signed on March 13, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:24-cv-04843 Document 33 Filed 03/13/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3