Carson v. McDevitt ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION FILED July 27, 2023 ANISSA D. CARSON, Sui Juris, § § CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, § WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS § BY: ______________N __M ________________ v. § DEPUTY § JOHN R. MCDEVITT, and/or his § successor, individually, and in his official § capacity as CFO of Homeloan Service, § Inc. of Boise, ID, an ens legis being used § CIVIL NO. SA:23-CV-00443-OLG to conceal fraud; TROY MARTIN § and/or his successor, individually, and in § his official capacity as Bonial & § Association, P.C./Troy Martin, Substitute § Trustee, an ens legis being used to conceal § fraud; JOHN DOES (Investors) 1- § 10,000, § § Defendants. § ORDER This case is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Personal Jurisdiction, Insufficient Service of Process, and Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief Can Be Granted. (See Dkt. No. 5.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney issued a report and recommendation (R&R) with respect to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 7, June 27, 2023.) Plaintiff was served with a copy of the R&R by certified mail (see Dkt. No. 8), and the time to object has passed.1 The Court has thus reviewed the R&R to determine whether it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989). After such review, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Chestney’s recommendation should be accepted. 1A party desiring to object to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations must file and serve written objections within fourteen days after being served with the recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Service is made to the last-known address of the party, and service by mail is complete upon mailing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C). It is therefore ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Chestney’s R&R (Dkt. No. 7) is ACCEPTED. It is further ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the R&R, Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 5) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This case is CLOSED. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 27th day of July, 2023. ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge