Orr Auto, Inc. d/b/a Orr Volkswagen of Texarkana v. Autoplex Extended Services LLC d/b/a Motor Vehicle Services

E.D. Texas

Orr Auto, Inc. d/b/a Orr Volkswagen of Texarkana v. Autoplex Extended Services LLC d/b/a Motor Vehicle Services

DecidedDecember 23, 2025

Docket5:24-cv-00029

StatusUnknown

This text of Orr Auto, Inc. d/b/a Orr Volkswagen of Texarkana v. Autoplex Extended Services LLC d/b/a Motor Vehicle Services (Orr Auto, Inc. d/b/a Orr Volkswagen of Texarkana v. Autoplex Extended Services LLC d/b/a Motor Vehicle Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Orr Auto, Inc. d/b/a Orr Volkswagen of Texarkana v. Autoplex Extended Services LLC d/b/a Motor Vehicle Services, (E.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

ORR AUTO, INC. d/b/a ORR § VOLKSWAGEN OF TEXARKANA, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-CV-29-RWS-JBB § AUTOPLEX EXTENDED SERVICES § LLC d/b/a MOTOR VEHICLE § SERVICES, § § Defendant. §

ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Autoplex Extended Services LLC’s Motion for Relief from Default Judgment. Docket No. 40. The above-captioned case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On December 3, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending the denial of Defendant’s motion. Docket No. 51. As of this date, no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. Because no objections have been filed, any aggrieved party is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Moreover, except upon grounds of plain error, an aggrieved party is barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Texas, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017); Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, Case No. 4:21-CV-00203-RAS, 2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021). The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 51) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that Defendant Autoplex Extended Services LLC’s motion (Docket No. 40) is DENIED. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 23rd day of December, 2025.

[dohert LU Llpectsr C2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

ORR AUTO, INC. d/b/a ORR § VOLKSWAGEN OF TEXARKANA, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-CV-29-RWS-JBB § AUTOPLEX EXTENDED SERVICES § LLC d/b/a MOTOR VEHICLE § SERVICES, § § Defendant. §

ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Autoplex Extended Services LLC’s Motion for Relief from Default Judgment. Docket No. 40. The above-captioned case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On December 3, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending the denial of Defendant’s motion. Docket No. 51. As of this date, no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. Because no objections have been filed, any aggrieved party is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Moreover, except upon grounds of plain error, an aggrieved party is barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Texas, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017); Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, Case No. 4:21-CV-00203-RAS, 2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021). The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 51) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that Defendant Autoplex Extended Services LLC’s motion (Docket No. 40) is DENIED. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 23rd day of December, 2025.

[dohert LU Llpectsr C2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Orr Auto, Inc. d/b/a Orr Volkswagen of Texarkana v. Autoplex Extended Services LLC d/b/a Motor Vehicle Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orr-auto-inc-dba-orr-volkswagen-of-texarkana-v-autoplex-extended-txed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack