Pestova v. US Bank Trust Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
SVETLANA A. PESTOVA,
Plaintiff,
versus
US BANK TRUST COMPANY,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-00551
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDA AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff Svetlana A. Pestova proceeds here pro se. She
sued Defendant US Bank Trust Company for unjust
enrichment and injunctive relief in the 281st District Court
of Harris County, Texas. Dkt 1 at 13–14 (original petition).
Defendant removed based on diversity jurisdiction. Id
at 2. It then filed two motions to dismiss for failure to state
a claim. See Dkts 6 & 7.
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Richard Bennett. Dkt 5. Judge Bennett entered a
Memorandum and Recommendation recommending that
the earlier motion to dismiss be denied as moot. Id at 10.
He further noted that the original petition fails to plead a
plausible claim for relief. Id at 5–8. But he stated such
failure shouldn’t automatically result in dismissal with
prejudice. Id at 9. He thus recommended that the
remaining motion to dismiss be granted and Plaintiff’s
claims be dismissed unless Plaintiff moved for leave to
amend within fourteen days. Id at 9–10.
Plaintiff timely filed a putative motion for leave to
amend. Dkt 16. But she failed to address any deficiencies
noted in the prior Memorandum and Recommendation,
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 16, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-00551 Document 18 Filed 03/16/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
while also failing to provide a proposed amended
complaint. Judge Bennett thus entered another
Memorandum and Recommendation recommending that
the remaining motion to dismiss be granted and this suit
dismissed with prejudice. Dkt 17 at 12–13.
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 Memoranda and
Recommendations, the record, and the applicable law.
The Memoranda and Recommendations of the
Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkts 15 & 17.
The motion by Defendant US Bank Trust Company to
dismiss is GRANTED. Dkt 7
The prior motion to dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT. Dkt 6.
A final judgment dismissing this action with prejudice
will enter separately.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on March 10, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-00551 Document 18 Filed 03/16/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2