Shaerica L. Walder v. Experian Information Solutions

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

464 (5th Cir. 1985) (“[T]he denial of a motion for summary judgment is not the equivalent of the entry of judgment ORDER against the movant.”). Thus, plaintiff's second objection is J. CAMPBELL BARKER United States District Judge meritless. Plaintiff brought this action under the Fair Credit As to plaintiff's final objection, the court appreciates Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et. seq. Doc. 106 at 1. plaintiff's clarification that the citing of fictitious cases was The case was referred to a magistrate judge. Plaintiff filed a “unintentional, not made in bad faith, and not intended motion for summary judgment. Doc. 80. The magistrate judge to mislead the Court.” Doc. 140 at 2. However, plaintiff issued a report recommending that the court deny that motion. is still warned “that further citation to nonexistent cases Doc. 138 at 9. Plaintiff filed written objections. Doc. 140. and noncompliance with Local Rule CV-11(g) may result in sanctions, including her pleadings and other papers The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate being struck, filing restrictions, dismissal of her claims, and judge's report and recommendation de novo. 28 U.S.C. monetary penalties.” Doc. 138 at 8. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). “Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings objected Having reviewed the magistrate judge's report de novo and to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be finding no error, the court overrules plaintiff's objections and considered by the district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 accepts the report's findings and recommendations. Plaintiff's F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc), overruled motion for summary judgment (Doc. 80) is denied without on other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, prejudice to refiling. Plaintiff may file another motion for 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Furthermore, a party's summary judgment by March 30, 2026. See Doc. 132 at 3. entitlement to de novo review does not entitle it to raise arguments that were not presented to the magistrate judge *2 So ordered by the court on February 18, 2026.

Authorities cited in the passage: Nettles v. Wainwright · Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n · Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3)