Griffin v. Equifax Information Services LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CHELSEA GRIFFIN,
Plaintiff,
versus
EQUIFAX INFORMATION
SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-06378
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Chelsea Griffin proceeds here pro se. She filed
this lawsuit, asserting claims under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act against Defendant Equifax Information
Services, LLC. Dkt 1. The matter was referred for
disposition to Magistrate Judge Peter Bray. Dkt 5.
Judge Bray recommends that this action be dismissed
for failure to prosecute. Dkt 9. He explains that after
Plaintiff failed to submit the required summons to the
Clerk’s office or appear for scheduling conference on April
30, 2026, Plaintiff was ordered to attend an in-person show
cause hearing on June 4, 2026. Dkt 8. The order warned,
“Failure to appear will result in a recommendation that
this case be dismissed with prejudice for failure to
prosecute.” Ibid. Plaintiff failed to appear at that hearing.
Dkt 9 at 2. Judge Bray thus recommends that this action
be dismissed with prejudice.
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
June 25, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-06378 Document 10 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).
None of the parties filed objections. 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 9.
This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
A final judgment will issue by separate order.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
June 25, 2026
Case 4:25-cv-06378 Document 10 Filed 06/25/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2