Kristeen B. Adams v. AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. d/b/a GM Financial

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION KRISTEEN B. ADAMS, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:25-cv-262-JDK-KNM § AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL § SERVICES, INC. d/b/a GM § FINANCIAL, § § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court is Defendant AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. d/b/a GM Financial’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). Docket No. 19. Plaintiff Kristeen B. Adams filed this breach of contract action pursuant to several federal statutes. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

On December 12, 2025, Judge Mitchell issued a Report (Docket No. 32) recommending that the motion to dismiss be granted and that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed with prejudice. No written objections have been filed, and the time for filing objections has passed.

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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(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. Assn, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en bane), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).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, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (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 findings, 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. 32) as the opinion of this Court. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 19) is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs claims are dismissed with prejudice. All other motions pending in this case are DENIED as moot.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 11th day of January, 2026. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE