IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

DANNY JOHNSTON, § § Plaintiff / Counter-Defendant, § § v. § § PATRICIA JOHNSTON, § § Defendant / Counter-Plaintiff, § Case No. 6:23-cv-413-JDK-KNM § v. § § EAST TEXAS OIL FIELD § CONSTRUCTION, LLC, § § Counter-Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court are three motions: (1) Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Patricia Johnston’s motion against East Texas Oil Field Construction, LLC (“ETOFC”) (Docket No. 75); (2) Patricia’s motion for partial summary judgment against Counter-Defendants Danny Johnston and ETOFC on her amended counterclaim (Docket No. 78); and (3) Patricia’s motion for summary judgment on her trespass claim against Danny and Danny’s claims against her (Docket No. 84). The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition. Docket No. 15. On May 2, 2025, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that Patricia’s (Docket No. 84) be granted. Docket No. 99. She additionally recommended that Patricia’s motion for partial summary judgment (Docket No. 78) be denied as to Danny because he is not liable as a matter of law for Patricia’s breach of promissory

note counterclaim. Docket No. 99. And Judge Mitchell further recommended that the motion for partial summary judgment be denied as moot as to ETOFC. Id. No objections have been received. This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and Recommendation.

(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court

examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute,

(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). Here, no objections were filed. The Court therefore reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States v.

Wilson,

(5th Cir. 1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 99) as the findings of this Court. Patricia’s motion for default judgment (Docket No. 75) and motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 84) are GRANTED. And Patricia’s motion for partial summary judgment (Docket No. 78) is DENIED as to Danny and DENIED as moot as to ETOFC. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 14th day of August, 2025.

JHREMYJD. KERNODLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE