September 08, 2025 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION LILLIAN GONZALEZ, § CIVIL ACTION NO Plaintiff, § 4:24-cv-05143 § § vs. § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § 2009 HOUSTON SCOTT § STREET LP d/b/a AUSTIN § DEVELOPMENT LOTS, § et al, § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Lillian Gonzalez proceeds here pro se. She sues Defendants 2009 Houston Scott Street LP, Eureka Multifamily Group, LP, Rene O Campos, Marcus Dominick, and Kristy O’Neil for violations of the Fair Housing Act and the Violence Against Women Act. Dkt 1 at 17–21. She also brings action under

, claiming that Defendants retaliated against her for activity protected by the First Amendment. Id at 19. She also states claims under state law for intentional infliction of emotional distress and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Id at 16, 19–20. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Yvonne Y. Ho. Dkt 5. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Dkt 11. Judge Ho converted the motion by Defendants into one for summary judgment due to its reliance on evidence. Dkt 31. She then entered a Memorandum and Recommendation recommending the motion be granted. Dkt 51. The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) &

(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 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,

(5th Cir 2005), citing Douglass v United Services Automobile Association,

(5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b) advisory committee note (1983). Plaintiff filed an objection, generally raising arguments raised and argued previously. Dkt 52. The Memorandum and Recommendation is clear, thorough, and reasoned, while addressing all arguments raised or properly at issue. Upon de novo review and determination, the objections by Plaintiff lack merit. And beyond that, no clear error appears upon review and consideration of the Memoranda and Recommendations, the record, and the applicable law. The objections by Plaintiff Lillian Gonzalez to the Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are OVERRULED. Dkt 52. The Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this Court. Dkt 51. The motion by Defendants 2009 Houston Scott Street LP, Eureka Multifamily Group, LP, Rene O Campos, Marcus Dominick, and Kristy O’Neil for summary judgment is GRANTED. Dkt 11. The claims in this action are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A final judgment will enter separately. SO ORDERED. Signed on September 8, 2025, at Houston, Texas.

Z. Hon Charles Eskridge United States District Judge