Gorman v. Pennymac Corp

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION RICHARD HENRY GORMAN, JR., § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-22-CV-1071-FB § PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC; TRANS§ UNION LLC; EQUIFAX INFORMATION § SERVICES, LLC; and EXPERIAN § INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., § § Defendants. § ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND LIFTING STAY OF CASE The Court has considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed in the above-captioned cause on September 3, 2025 (docket #81). According to the CM/ECF system, the Report and Recommendation was electronically transmitted to all the parties on September 3, 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 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, 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 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 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 PennyMac Loan Services, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment (docket #63) shall be GRANTED such that all of Plaintiff's claims against Defendant PennyMac Loan Services, LLC shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed in this cause on September 3, 2025 (docket #81), is ACCEPTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that Defendant PennyMac Loan Services, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment (docket #63) is GRANTED such that all claims against Defendant PennyMac Loan Services, LLC are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. On September 30, 2024, the Court entered an Order Staying Case (docket #79) until a ruling is made on PennyMac Loan Services, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stay is now LIFTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because all claims against all Defendants have been resolved, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.’ Motions pending, if any, are also DISMISSED, and this case is CLOSED. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 18th day of September, 2025.

“ cjeer a FRED BIERY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

* A Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice as to Defendant Trans Union LLC was filed on September 29, 2023 (docket #61); a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice as to Defendant Equifax Information Services, Inc. was filed on October 4, 2023 (docket #62); and a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice as to Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. was filed on November 20, 2023 (docket #70). -2-