Federal National Mortage Association v. Kalkan

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:25-cv-01132 Document 38 Filed 03/09/26 in TXSD Page1of2
United States District Court

Southem District of Texas
ENTERED
March 09, 2026
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTAGE §
ASSOCIATION, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO, 4:25-CV-01132
§
FERCAN E KALKAN, §
§
Defendant. §
ORDER

Before the Court are United States Magistrate Judge Peter Bray’s Memorandum and
Recommendations filed on February 4, 2026 (Doc. #35), Defendant Fercan E. Kalkan’s Objections
(Doc. #36), and Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association’s Response (Doc. #37). The
Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions are reviewed de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(); United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989), Having
reviewed the parties’ arguments and the applicable legal authority, the Court adopts the
Memorandum and Recommendation as its Order.

In this case, Defendant signed a guaranty agreement obligating him to pay the full amount
of indebtedness on a note owned by Plaintiff in the event the borrower filed for bankruptcy.
Doc. #35 at 2. Then, after the borrower filed for bankruptcy, Defendant did not repay the loan.
id. Accordingly, Plaintiff brought a breach of guaranty action in this Court, seeking to recover the
outstanding principal on the note, plus interest and attorney’s fees. Doc, #1. On August 26, 2025,
Plaintiff filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, to which Defendant responded on

November 21, 2025. Doc. #11; Doc. #28; Doc. #29. Plaintiff also filed the pending Motion to

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
GPO

Case 4:25-cv-01132 Document 38 Filed 03/09/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2

Strike, which asks the Court to strike Defendant’s “rebuttal” to Plaintiffs sur-reply in support of
its Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. #33. The Magistrate Judge recommended the Court
grant Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike. Doc. #35,

Defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendations.
Doc. #36. Nearly all of Defendant’s objections, however, present new arguments and evidence
that were not raised before the Magistrate Judge during summary judgment. But new arguments
“are forfeited if they are not raised before a magistrate judge,” even if they are raised in objections
to the memorandum and recommendation, Shambaugh & Son, L.P. v, Steadfast Ins. Co., 91 F 4th
364, 369 (Sth Cir. 2024). Similarly, this Court is not required to accept evidence submitted for the
first time in an objection. Reuter v. XTO Energy, Inc., 4:20-cv-1474, 2022 WL 2712860, at *2
(S.D, Tex. July 13, 2022) (citing Freeman v. Cnty. Of Bexar, 142 F.3d 848, 852-53 (Sth Cir.
1998)). Upon review, Defendant’s objections are nothing more than an effort to “muddy the
factual record.” See Doc. #35 at 5. The objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation are
therefore overruled.

In conclusion, the Court adopts the Memorandum and Recommendation (Doc. #35) as its
Order. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #11) and Motion to Strike
(Doc. #33) are GRANTED.

It is so ORDERED. ‘

MAR 0 9 2026 |

Date The Honorable Alfred H, Bennett
United States District Judge