Walder v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc, No. 6:25-cv-00120 (Feb. 18, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
Shaerica L. Walder v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
Feb. 18, 2026
Disposition
Motion Denied
Shaerica L. Walder, Plaintiff, v. Experian Information Solutions,..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 468409Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, E.D. Texas.Shaerica L. Walder, Plaintiff,v.Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant.No. 6:25-cv-00120|Filed 02/18/2026Attorneys and Law FirmsShaerica L. Walder, Tyler, TX, Pro Se.John Komisin, Troutman Pepper Locke LLP, Richmond, VA,Vincent J. Hess, Matthew Kyle Hansen, Troutman PepperLocke LLP, Dallas, TX, for Defendant Experian InformationSolutions, Inc.ORDERJ. CAMPBELL BARKER United States District Judge*1 Plaintiff brought this action under the Fair CreditReporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et. seq. Doc. 106 at 1.The case was referred to a magistrate judge. Plaintiff filed amotion for summary judgment. Doc. 80. The magistrate judgeissued a report recommending that the court deny that motion.Doc. 138 at 9. Plaintiff filed written objections. Doc. 140.The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistratejudge's report and recommendation de novo. 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). “Parties filingobjections must specifically identify those findings objectedto. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not beconsidered by the district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc), overruledon other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n,79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Furthermore, a party'sentitlement to de novo review does not entitle it to raisearguments that were not presented to the magistrate judgewithout a compelling reason. See Cupit v. Whitley, 28 F.3d532, 535 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1994).Plaintiff objects to the report on three grounds: (1) that anydenial of plaintiff's motion should be without prejudice torefiling; (2) that any denial of plaintiff's motion should not beconsidered a resolution on the merits; and (3) that plaintiff'scitation of fictitious cases was unintentional, not due to badfaith, and without intent to deceive. Doc. 140.First, the report did not specifically recommend denyingplaintiff's motion for summary judgment with prejudice torefiling same. See generally Doc. 138. However, there is noneed to address plaintiff's objection. “[A] trial court mayreconsider a previously denied motion for summary judgmenteven in the absence of new evidentiary material.” Conklingv. Turner, 18 F.3d 1285, 1296 (5th Cir. 1994). Because thereport did not clearly recommend denying plaintiff's motionwith prejudice to refiling, plaintiff is free to refile a summaryjudgment motion by the court's March 30, 2026 dispositivemotion deadline. Doc. 132 at 3.Second, denying a summary judgment motion is not aresolution on the merits. See Landry v. G.B.A., 762 F.2d 462,464 (5th Cir. 1985) (“[T]he denial of a motion for summaryjudgment is not the equivalent of the entry of judgmentagainst the movant.”). Thus, plaintiff's second objection ismeritless.As to plaintiff's final objection, the court appreciatesplaintiff's clarification that the citing of fictitious cases was“unintentional, not made in bad faith, and not intendedto mislead the Court.” Doc. 140 at 2. However, plaintiffis still warned “that further citation to nonexistent casesand noncompliance with Local Rule CV-11(g) may resultin sanctions, including her pleadings and other papersbeing struck, filing restrictions, dismissal of her claims, andmonetary penalties.” Doc. 138 at 8.Having reviewed the magistrate judge's report de novo andfinding no error, the court overrules plaintiff's objections andaccepts the report's findings and recommendations. Plaintiff'smotion for summary judgment (Doc. 80) is denied withoutprejudice to refiling. Plaintiff may file another motion forsummary judgment by March 30, 2026. See Doc. 132 at 3.*2 So ordered by the court on February 18, 2026.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 468409
Shaerica L. Walder, Plaintiff, v. Experian Information Solutions,..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2End of Document© 2026 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