EKIJOINT GOLD, LLC v. JAIME DEL COLLINS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION DR. JOSE EMMANUEL LOPEZ § VELARDE LUNA, § § Plaintiff, § § V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-23-cv-00358-FB § JAIME DEL COLLINS, Individually and § d/b/a Ekijoint Gold USA and as Optiwize § Health and as Soundness Solutions, LLC; § and OPTI JOINTS LLC, § § Defendants. § ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge concerning Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (docket no. 77), and the Motion to Void Confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release Under Legal Defect filed by Plaintiff (docket no. 83). To date, no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been received.1 Because no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made."). The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finds its reasoning to be neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989).

1 Any party who desires to object to a Magistrate's findings and recommendations must serve and file his, her or its written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the findings and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 635(b)(1). If service upon a party is made by mailing a copy to the party’s last known address, “service is complete upon mailing.” FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b)(2)(C). If service is by electronic means, “service is complete upon transmission.” Id. at (E).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (docket no. 77) is ACCEPTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (docket no. 77) is GRANTED IN PART, Plaintiff s Motion to Void Confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release Under Legal Defect (docket no. 83) is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that remaining motions pending with the Court, if any, are Dismissed as Moot and this case is CLOSED.

It is so ORDERED.

SIGNED this 24th day of September, 2025.

Feet CF D BIERY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE