Pete v. Houston Methodist Hosp. (Sept. 3, 2025)

Case details
Full caption
Pete v. Houston Methodist Hospital
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
Sept. 3, 2025
Majority
Michael J. Truncale (J.) (unanimous Court)
KER'RAH CHAUN'TEL PETE, Plaintiff, v. HOUSTON METHODIST..., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 2544001Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court,E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division.KER'RAH CHAUN'TEL PETE, Plaintiff,v.HOUSTON METHODIST HOSPITAL/TEXAS MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant.CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-00273-MJT-CLS|Filed 09/03/2025MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULINGPLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTINGTHE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OFTHE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGEMichael J. Truncale United States District Judge*1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rulesof Court for the Assignment of Duties to United StatesMagistrate Judges, the District Court referred this proceedingto United States Magistrate Judge Christine L. Stetson toconduct all pretrial proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);E.D. TEX. CIV. R. 72. On June 23, 2025, Plaintiff filed aMotion for Default Judgment [Dkt. 5]. In her motion, Plaintiffclaimed that she had effected service on the defendant.She provided an unsigned affidavit from “Alexandra J.Smith”1 claiming service had been accomplished on June10, 2025, but Defendant had not answered [Dkt. 4]. JudgeStetson scheduled a hearing on Plaintiff's motion and directedPlaintiff to bring the proof of service to the hearing. [Dkt.8].Judge Stetson held the hearing on July 10, 2025. Plaintiffappeared in her pro se capacity. When questioned aboutattorney Alexandra Smith, Plaintiff admitted she never metMs. Smith and that Ms. Smith did not represent her. Plaintiffthen admitted that she used Artificial Intelligence to preparethe motion. Judge Stetson advised Plaintiff that the State Barof Texas has no record of an Alexandra J. Smith from Houstonwith this bar number and cautioned Plaintiff about using AIto prepare legal documents as she would be held responsiblefor the content it creates.Thereafter, Judge Stetson questioned Plaintiff regarding hercontention in the motion for default judgment that service onDefendant had been effected on June 10, 2025, and that theclerk had issued entry of default on June 21, 2025, when thecourt has yet to even issue a summons in the case and thedocket reveals no such entry of default by the clerk. See [Dkt.9 at 2]. At the hearing, Plaintiff admitted that she had notserved the Defendant and that she was not entitled to a defaultjudgment. Judge Stetson advised Plaintiff that she would issuea report and recommendation denying the motion for defaultjudgment. She also cautioned the Plaintiff that further filingscontaining false facts or AI-generated false caselaw couldresult in sanctions.On August 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to compelrequesting that Judge Stetson issue the promised reportand recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for DefaultJudgment [Dkt. 10]. Judge Stetson issued the Report andRecommendation [Dkt. 12] on August 8, 2025, with thefollowing conclusions and recommendations: (1) Plaintiff hasnot met the procedural requirements for a default judgmentas no summons has been issued herein, no service has beenperfected, and no entry of default has been issued by the clerkof the court, (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment [Dkt.5] should be denied, and (3) Plaintiff's Motion to CompelDefault Judgment [Dkt. 10] should be denied as moot. JudgeStetson's report also contained a caution to the Plaintiff aboutthe use of AI and a warning that all filings must comply withFED. R. CIV. P. 11.*2 On August 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed her objections to theReport and Recommendation [Dkt. 13].I. Legal StandardA party who timely files specific, written objections to amagistrate judge's report and recommendation is entitled to ade novo determination of those findings or recommendationsto which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2)-(3). To be specific, an objectionmust identify the specific finding or recommendation towhich objection is made, state the basis for the objection,and specify the place in the magistrate judge's report andrecommendation where the disputed determination is found.An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refersto the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific.Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not beconsidered by the district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on othergrounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d1412 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
KER'RAH CHAUN'TEL PETE, Plaintiff, v. HOUSTON METHODIST..., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2II. Plaintiff's Objections are OverruledPlaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation on twogrounds [Dkt. 13]. First, she asserts that the recommendationto deny the default judgment is a clear error of law and iscontrary to FED. R. CIV. P. 55. Second, she complains aboutthe delay from the hearing on July 10, 2025, to the issuanceof the Report and Recommendation on August 8, 2025. TheCourt will address each of these objections in turn.Despite Plaintiff's admissions at the July 10, 2025 hearing thatthere has been no service on the Defendant and she is notentitled to a default judgment, Plaintiff's objections contendotherwise. On page 3 of her objections, she states: “Thegrounds are indisputable. Defendant was properly served andhas failed to appear, plead, or otherwise defend this action asrequired by the Federal Rules” [Dkt. 13 at 3]. This statementis false, and Plaintiff is ordered to show cause as to why sheshould not be sanctioned for violations of FED. R. CIV. P. 11.Judge Stetson's report is accurate. Defendant has not beenserved in this action and therefore Plaintiff is not entitled to adefault judgment. Plaintiff's first objection is overruled.Plaintiff's second objection regarding the delay in issuing theReport and Recommendation is not well-taken. The Courtdoes not find a delay of 30 days from the hearing to the Reportto be either significant or prejudicial to Plaintiff. Plaintiffalso argues that the delay shows prejudice on the part ofthe Magistrate Judge and cites to two cases to support herargument: Lee v. United States, No. 1:23-cv-84, 2023 WL2505510 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 14, 2023), and Taylor v. UnitedStates, No. 6:21-cv-448, 2022 WL 257007 (E.D. Tex. Jan27, 2022). The Court cannot locate either of these casesin either the Westlaw database using the citations providedor in the Eastern District of Texas filing system. Despitethe admonitions of Judge Stetson, these cases may be fake.Plaintiff has shown no such prejudice on the part of theMagistrate Judge.As Plaintiff has not shown that the delay in issuing the Reportand Recommendation was either significant or prejudicial andshe has not established any bias on the part of the MagistrateJudge, Plaintiff's second objection is overruled.III. Conclusion and Order*3 The Court has conducted a de novo review of Plaintiff'sobjections in relation to the pleadings and the applicablelaw. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration,Plaintiff's objections [Dkt. 13] are OVERRULED. TheReport and Recommendation of the United States MagistrateJudge [Dkt. 12] is ADOPTED. Plaintiff's Motion for DefaultJudgment [Dkt. 5] is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion to CompelDefault Judgment [Dkt. 10] is DENIED as moot.Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why she shouldnot be sanctioned under FED. R. CIV. P. 11 for filing motionsthat contain false statements and/or fake caselaw. The Courtrequests Judge Stetson to hold an evidentiary hearing at herearliest convenience and to thereafter issue a Report andRecommendation on this issue.SIGNED this 3rd day of September, 2025.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2025 WL 2544001Footnotes1Alexandra Smith's name appears on the motion for default judgment along with a Texas State Bar number.End of Document© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access