Patricia Geraldina Gonzalez Maass v. United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION PATRICIA GERALDINA GONZALEZ MAASS,§ § Petitioner, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-25-CV-259-FB § UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § § Respondent. § ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The Court has considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed in the above-captioned cause on December 12, 2025 (docket #8), concerning Defendant United States’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Patricia Geraldina Gonzalez Maass’s Petition to Quash Third-Party Summons (docket #4), and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File to Cure Late Service (docket #3). According to the CM/ECF system, the Report and Recommendation sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Plaintiff Patricia Geraldina Gonzalez Maas was received on December 19, 2025 (docket #10). The record reflects Defendant United States of America was served by electronic transmission on December 15, 2025. To date, the docket reflects 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 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 made by electronic means, “service is complete upon transmission.” Id. at (E). When the mode of service is by electronic means, three days are no longer added to the time period to act after being served. See Heverling v. McNeil Consumer Pharmaceuticals, Co., Civil Action No. 1:17-CV-1433, 2018 WL 1293304 at *2 n.3 (M.D. 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 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), The Recommendation shall therefore be accepted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that Defendant United States’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Patricia Geraldina Gonzalez Maass’s Petition to Quash Third-Party Summons (docket #4) shall be GRANTED and this case shall be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction. As noted in the Report, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File to Cure Late Service (docket #3) is moot.’

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed in this cause on December 12, 2025 (docket #8), is ACCEPTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that Defendant United States’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Patricia Geraldina Gonzalez Maass’s Petition to Quash Third-Party Summons (docket #4) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that motions pending, if any, are DISMISSED AS MOOT, and this case is now CLOSED.

It is so ORDERED.

SIGNED this 6th day of January, 2026.

< jeer C a FRED BIERY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE * According to the CM/ECF system, United States Magistrate Judge Richard B. Farrer entered a text order on December 12, 2025, which mooted Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File to Cure Late Service (docket #3). -2-