Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. Brian K. McLain d/b/a Vacuum City

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that McLain's objection # 13 is overruled and the Motion to Dismiss # 9 is denied. Signed by Judge Marcia A. Crone on 2/26/13. (mrp, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CHASE BANK USA, N.A.,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRIAN K. MCLAIN
d/b/a Vacuum City,
Defendant.

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-353

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate
Judge, for all pretrial matters pursuant to an Order of Reference entered on August 6, 2012. The
Court has received and considered the report (Doc. No. 11) of the magistrate judge, who
recommends that the Court deny Defendant Brian K. McLain’s “Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. No.
9). On February 8, 2013, McLain filed what he describes as final proof of unfair business
practices and fraud and motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 13.) The Court construes this filing as
objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The Plaintiff has not filed a
response to McLain’s filing.
A party who files timely written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation is entitled to a de novo determination of those findings or recommendations to
which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(c) (Supp. IV 2011); FED. R. CIV. P.
72(b)(2)–(3). “Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings [to which they
object]. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district
court.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on

other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
In McLain’s filing, he does not identify any specific issue of law or fact, among those set forth in
the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, with which he disagrees.

Therefore,

McLain’s objection fails to invoke his right to a de novo review of the report and
recommendation. Nonetheless, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the report and
recommendation, and the Court concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions are
correct. See Douglass, 79 F.3d at 1429 (noting that a district court may alternatively find the
magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions were correct even though a party did not properly
object to the report and recommendation).
McLain’s objection (Doc. No. 13) is OVERRULED; the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation (Doc. No. 11) is ADOPTED; and McLain’s “Motion to Dismiss” (Doc. No. 9)

.
is DENIED.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 7th day of September, 2004.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 26th day of February, 2013.

________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 of 2