THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SEP 17 2675 DEL RIO DIVISION CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTER OF TEXAS ELIZABETH MUNOZ, Individually and = § BY. ERK as Next Friend of E.S., S.S., and A.S., § Plaintiff, § § v. § Cause No. DR-24-CV-0011-AM § LABANA BROS. CORP. and MANGAL — § SINGH, § Defendants. § ORDER Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Matthew H. Watters, United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 36.) On January 26, 2024, the Court referred all pretrial matters to Judge Watters under Title

. Judge Watters now recommends denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 23] and the Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment [ECF Nos. 24, 25, 26] as moot. No party timely objected. Upon review, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. I. BACKGROUND This matter arises from a car accident that occurred on May 18, 2023, in Eagle Pass, Texas. After filing the complaint and answer [See ECF No. 1], both the Plaintiff and the Defendants filed their respective motions for summary judgment [ECF Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26]. In their motion, the Plaintiff requests that summary judgment be granted as to the Defendants’ affirmative defense that the Plaintiff's damages were proximately caused by the Plaintiff herself. (ECF No. 23.) In the Defendants’ respective motions, they request summary judgment be granted to dismiss the Plaintiff's negligent entrustment claim against Defendant Labana Bros. [ECF No. 24], the gross negligence claim against Defendant Singh [ECF No. 25], and the gross negligence claim against

Defendant Labana Bros. [ECF No. 26]. The Plaintiff then filed their first amended complaint [ECF No. 30] to which the Defendants filed an amended answer [ECF No. 31]. Il. STANDARD OF REVIEW Parties may object to the proposed findings and recommendations of a Magistrate Judge within fourteen (14) days after service of the report and recommendation. See

(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Objections to Judge Watters’ Report and Recommendation were due July 21, 2025. No party filed objections to Judge Watters’ Report and Recommendation. Thus, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of the pending matter. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.

(Sth Cir. 1996). Rather, the Court needs only to review the report and recommendation to determine whether it is erroneous or clearly contrary to the law. United States v. Wilson,

(Sth Cir. 1989). I. ANALYSIS Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

(1986). A material fact is one that “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Jd. However, “any set of circumstances that eliminates actual controversy after the commencement of a lawsuit renders that action moot.” □□□□ for Individual Freedom v. Carmouche,

, 661 (Sth Cir. 2006). In this case, Judge Watters correctly found that the Plaintiffs first amended complaint [ECF No. 30] no longer asserts the claims which formed the bases of the Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment [ECF Nos. 24, 25, 26]. Similarly, the Defendants’ amended answer [ECF No.

31] no longer asserts the affirmative defense which formed the basis of the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 23]. Thus, based upon the updated claims and defenses alleged in the amended pleadings, the actual controversies argued within the respective motions for summary judgment have been eliminated, rendering the motions moot. The Report and Recommendation found that the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 23] and the Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment [ECF Nos. 24, 25, 26] should be denied as moot. (ECF No. 36.) The Court has reviewed Judge Watters’ Report and Recommendation and finds neither clear error nor any finding or conclusion contrary to law. IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Watters’ Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 36] and DENIES the Plaintiffs and Defendants’ respective Motions for Summary Judgment [ECF Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26] as MOOT. SIGNED and ENTERED on this 17th day of September 2025.

Chief United States District Judge