Espino Tire & Wheel, Inc. v. Espino’s Tires San Antonio, LLC

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION ESPINO TIRE & WHEEL, INC, § § Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-25-CV-00710-FB § ESPINO’S TIRES SAN ANTONIO, LLC, § § Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, § ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court are the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 45) concerning Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s First Amended Counterclaims for Failure to State a Claim Under Rule 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 33) and Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Claim of Common Law Trademark Infringement (ECF No. 34), along with Defendant’s written objections (ECF No. 47) thereto. Where no party has objected to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. 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."). In such cases, the Court need only review the Report and Recommendation and determine whether it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). On the other hand, any Report and Recommendation to which objection is made requires de novo review by the Court. Such a review means that the Court will examine the entire record, and will make an independent assessment of the law. The Court need not, however, conduct a de novo review when the objections are frivolous, conclusive, or general in nature. Battle v. United States Parole The Court has thoroughly analyzed Defendant’s submission in light of the entire record. As required by Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), the Court has conducted an independent review of the entire record in this cause and has conducted a de novo review with respect to those matters raised by the objections. After due consideration, the Court concludes the objections lack merit. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 45) is ACCEPTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s First Amended Counterclaims for Failure to State a Claim Under Rule 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 33) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and that Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Claim of Common Law Trademark Infringement (ECF No. 34) is DENIED. Defendant’s Sherman Act counterclaim (Count IID) and its first declaratory judgment counterclaim (Count 1) are DISMISSED. All other claims and counterclaims shall go forward. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 8th day of September, 2026.

Feet CF D BIERY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-