December 02, 2025 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

DAVID K. HOLLAND and § CIVIL ACTION NO VALERIA HOLLAND, § 4:25-cv-03004 Plaintiffs, § § § vs. § JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE § § FEDERAL NATIONAL § MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, § et al, § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiffs David K. Holland and Valeria Holland proceed here pro se. They filed a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Dkt 29. This action was referred to Magistrate Judge Yvonne Ho. Pending is an Order and Recommendation stating that the motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction should be denied as moot because the property at issue has been sold, extinguishing any threat of pending foreclosure. Dkt 42. 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 Order and Recommendation, the record, and the applicable law. The Order and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this Court. Dkt 42. The motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is DENIED AS MOOT. Dkt 29. SO ORDERED. Signed on December 1, 2025, at Houston, Texas.

Z. n Charles Eskridge United States District Judge