John M. Anderson v. Monterey Financial Services, LLC

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: February 5, 2026
• Docket: 6:25-cv-00102
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION JOHN M. ANDERSON, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 6:25-cv-102-JDK-JDL § MONTEREY FINANCIAL SERVICES, § LLC, § § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE On March 26, 2025, Plaintiff John M. Anderson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Monterey Financial Services, LLC (“Defendant”), alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. §§ 227, et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692, et seq., and the Texas Debt Collection Act (“TDCA”), Texas Finance Code §§ 392, et seq. Docket No. 1. The Court referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition. Defendant Monterey Financial Services, LLC filed a motion for summary judgment. Docket No. 23. On January 16, 2026, Judge Love issued a report and recommendation recommending that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted and that Plaintiff’s TCPA and FDCPA claims be dismissed with prejudice and Plaintiff’s TDCA claims should be dismissed without prejudice. Docket No. 31. Neither party has filed objections and the time-frame for doing so has 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. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).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 the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed). Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, 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. 31. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 23) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s TCPA and FDCPA claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff’s TDCA claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. All other motions which may be pending are DENIED. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 5th day of February, 2026. C5, A Kom UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE