IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

CELESTE ELIZABETH HOWEY, 

Plaintiff, 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

vs. CIVIL NO. 4:22-CV-747-P 

CENDERA FUNDING 

CORPORATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

ORDER RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL 

OF CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT CENDERA FUNDING CORPORATION 

Pro se Plaintiff Celeste Elizabeth Howey filed the above-styled and numbered cause of 

action on August 25, 2022, against Cendera Funding Corporation ("Cendera") and Truist Bank. On 

September 14, 2022, summons returned unexecuted as to Cendera [doc. 13]. As of the date of these 

findings, there is no service on record for Cendera. Consequently, the Court RECOMMENDS that 

claims against Cendera in the above-styled and numbered cause be DISMISSED pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 1 

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), each party to this action has the right to serve and file specific 

written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge's 

proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after the patty has 

been served with a copy of this document. The United States District Judge need only make a de 

1 "If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court-on motion or on its own 

after notice to the plaintiff-must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be 

made within a specified time." Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(111). 

Case 4:22-cv-00747-P Document 40 Filed 12/06/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 314
nova determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, 

conclusions and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b )(I). Failure to file, by the date stated above, a specific written objection to a proposed 

factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain e1rnr or manifest 

injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal conclusions 

accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass 'n, 79 F.3d 

1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en bane), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(l) (extending time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). 

ORDER 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is hereby ORDERED that each party is granted until December 

20, 2022, to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed 

findings, conclusions and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if objections are filed 

and the opposing party chooses to file a response, the response shall be filed within seven (7) days 

of the filing date of the objections. 

It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to 

the United States Magistrate Judge for findings, conclusions and recommendation, be and hereby 

SIGNED December 6, 2022. 

URETON 

A TES MAGISTRATE JUDGE., 

2 

Case 4:22-cv-00747-P Document 40 Filed 12/06/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 315