Golden v. Westlake Finance Services, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
KEVIN R. GOLDEN,
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
v. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:24-cv-4093
WESTLAKE FINANCE
SERVICES, LLC, AND
WESTLAKE DIRECT, LLC,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending 	before 	the 	Court1 	are 	pro 	se 	Plaintiff 	Kevin 	R. 	Golden’s
(“Plaintiff”) Motion for Relief from Judgment (ECF No. 78), Motion for New
Trial or to Alter or Amend Judgement (ECF No. 79), Motion to Alter Judgment
(ECF No. 80), and Motion to Object to District Court’s Findings to Uphold
Magistrate R&R (ECF No. 81). Based on a review of the motions, arguments,
and relevant law, the Court RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s Motions (ECF Nos.
78–81) be DENIED.
Essentially Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment (ECF No. 78),
Motion for New Trial or to Alter or Amend Judgement (ECF No. 79), and
1 On November 15, 2024, this case was referred to the Undersigned for all purposes
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. (ECF
No. 5).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 24, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-04093 Document 89 Filed 04/24/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

2
Motion to Alter Judgment (ECF No. 80) all relate to the District Judge’s Order
Adopting 	the 	Undersigned’s 	Memorandum 	and 	Recommendation 	to 	deny
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 77). (See ECF No. 78 at 8; ECF
No. ECF No. 79 at 8; ECF No. 80 at 8). As explained by Defendants:
Plaintiff contends the [District Judge’s] Order at [ECF No.] 77
dismissed 	his 	claims 	on 	the 	merits 	based 	on 	a 	“superseded
complaint” and constituted “judicial oversight.” 	Both contentions
are incorrect. 	[ECF No.] 77 did not dismiss any of Plaintiff’s
claims. 	It adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and
Recommendation [ECF No. 70] and denied Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration 	[ECF 	No. 	56] 	of 	the 	previously 	denied
preliminary injunction [ECF No. 28].
(ECF 	No. 	82 	at 	1). 	Defendants 	are 	correct. 	Further, 	Plaintiff’s
misunderstanding seems to be the foundation for the instant motions. 	(See
ECF No. 78 at 4; ECF No. 79 at 4; ECF No. 80 at 5; ECF No. 81 at 5). 	Again,
the 	District 	Judge’s 	Order 	at 	ECF 	No. 	77 	is 	an 	Order 	Adopting 	the
Undersigned’s Memorandum and Recommendation to deny Plaintiff’s Motion
for Reconsideration. 	That Order is not considered a final judgment. 	See
Gallien v. Washington Mut. Home Loans Inc., 294 Fed. Appx. 882 (5th Cir.
2008) (“Appellants’ complaint about the court's denial of their application for
preliminary injunction is not the proper subject of a Rule 60(b) motion.”); see
also Ludgood v. Apex Marine Corp. Ship Mgmt., 311 F.3d 364, 368 (5th Cir.
2002) (“A judgment is said to be final if it conclusively determines the rights of
Case 4:24-cv-04093 Document 89 Filed 04/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

3
the parties to the litigation and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute
the order, or resolve collateral issues.” (internal citations omitted)).
Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment seeks relief pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6). (ECF No. 78 at
4, 7). 	Rule 60(b) offers grounds for relief from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding. 	However, as noted by Defendants Westlake Services, LLC dba
Westlake Financial Services, incorrectly named as Westlake Finance Services,
LLC, and Westlake Direct, LLC’s (collectively, “Defendants”), the District
Judge’s Order was not a final judgment and did not dispose of Plaintiff’s claims.
(ECF No. 82 at 3).
Similarly, 	Plaintiff’s 	Motion 	for 	New 	Trial 	or 	to 	Alter 	or 	Amend
Judgement (ECF No. 79) seeks relief pursuant to Rule 59(a) and (e). (ECF No.
79 at 4, 8). Rule 59(a) allows a court to grant a new trial. Rule 59(e) allows a
court to alter or amend a judgment. Again, as noted by Defendants (ECF No.
83 at 3), no trial has occurred and no final judgment on the merits has been
entered.
Lastly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter Judgment (ECF No. 80) seeks relief
under Rule 59(e) and Rule 52(b). 	(ECF No. 80 at 10). 	The Court already
explained why Rule 59(e) is inapplicable in this case. Rule 52(b) provides that
a party may move the court to “amend its findings, or make additional findings,
Case 4:24-cv-04093 Document 89 Filed 04/24/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

4
and may amend the judgment accordingly.” This type of motion must be filed
no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment. 	FED. R. C IV . P. 52(b).
Because there has not been an entry of judgment in this case, Rule 52(b) is
inapplicable. (See ECF No. 84 at 3).
As 	such, 	the 	Court 	recommends 	Plaintiff’s 	Motion 	for 	Relief 	from
Judgment (ECF No. 78), Motion for New Trial or to Alter or Amend Judgement
(ECF No. 79), and Motion to Alter Judgment (ECF No. 80) be denied.
Lastly, as to Plaintiff’s Motion to Object to District Court’s Findings to
Uphold Magistrate R&R (ECF No. 81), Plaintiff argues the “district court
abused its discretion when it adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation
denying 	Plaintiff’s 	opposition 	to 	Defendants’ 	Rule 	12(b) 	motion 	without
addressing Plaintiff’s pending opposition and motion for consideration directed
to the amended complaint.” (ECF No. 81 at 5). Plaintiff then requests that the
District Judge’s decision be vacated and remanded. 	(Id. at 7). 	Defendants
respond that Plaintiff’s motion “rests on the false premise that the [District
Judge’s] Order at [ECF No.] 77 dismissed his claims on the merits” and should
be denied because it is substantively without merit. (ECF No. 85 at 1).
The Court agrees with Defendants. 	As discussed, the District Judge’s
Order at ECF No. 77 is an Order Adopting the Undersigned’s Memorandum
and Recommendation to deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. 	The
Case 4:24-cv-04093 Document 89 Filed 04/24/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

5
Court did not make a ruling on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF
No. 64). 	As such, the relief that Plaintiff seeks is inapplicable. 	To the extent
Plaintiff intends this motion to be construed as a motion for reconsideration
under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b), it fails for the reasons discussed above. 	As
such, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s Motion to Object to District Court’s
Findings to Uphold Magistrate R&R (ECF No. 81) be denied.
Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s Motion
for Relief from Judgment (ECF No. 78), Motion for New Trial or to Alter or
Amend Judgement (ECF No. 79), Motion to Alter Judgment (ECF No. 80), and
Motion to Object to District Court’s Findings to Uphold Magistrate R&R (ECF
No. 81) be DENIED.
The Clerk shall send copies of this Memorandum and Recommendation
to the respective parties who have fourteen days from the receipt thereof to file
written objections thereto pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)
and General Order 2002-13. Failure to file written objections within the time
period mentioned shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual
findings and legal conclusions on appeal.
SIGNED in Houston, Texas on April 24, 2026.
______________________________
Richard W. Bennett
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:24-cv-04093 Document 89 Filed 04/24/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5