Hudson v. Navy Federal Credit Union et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ERNEST HUDSON,
Plaintiff,
versus
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION, et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:26-cv-00072
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Ernest Hudson proceeds here pro se. His
original complaint stated various claims under federal and
state law against Defendants Navy Federal Credit Union,
Capital One Auto Finance, and Equifax Information
Services, LLC. Dkt 1 at 1–2. He later filed two amended
complaints, both of which omit mention of either Navy
Federal or Equifax as defendants. Dkts 8 & 15. Navy
Federal moved to dismiss claims against it under Rule
12(b)(6). Dkt 30.
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Christina A. Bryan. Dkt 7. She recommends that all
claims against Navy Federal and Equifax be dismissed
because they are no longer listed as defendants in the
operative second amended complaint. Dkt 35 at 3–4. She
further recommends that the motion to dismiss by Navy
Federal be terminated as moot. Id at 4.
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
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 01, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00072 Document 41 Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
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 35.
The claims against Defendants Navy Federal Credit
Union and Equifax Information Services, LLC, are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 USC
§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
The motion by Navy Federal Credit Union to dismiss is
DENIED as moot. Dkt 30.
Claims against Defendant Capital One Auto Finance
remain pending.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
__________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
June 25, 2026
Case 4:26-cv-00072 Document 41 Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2