December 01, 2025 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

ADAM MARTINEZ, et al, § CIVIL ACTION NO Plaintiffs, § 4:25-cv-01270 § § vs. § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § SN SERVICING § CORPORATION, et al, § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiffs Adam Martinez, Hugo Cervantes, Raquel Vega Cervantes Martinez, Antonio Escamilla Martinez, and Nyeli Biana Escamilla proceed here pro se. They filed a motion to remand. Dkt 4. This action was referred to Magistrate Judge Yvonne Ho. Pending is a Memorandum and Recommendation recommending that the motion to remand be denied because (i) subject matter jurisdiction is proper based on both federal question and diversity jurisdiction, and (ii) removal was procedurally proper. See Dkt 60. 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). 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 60. The motion for remand is DENIED. Dkt 4. SO ORDERED. Signed on December 1, 2025, at Houston, Texas. C (LE, Eskridge United States District Judge