Xavier Jamal Smith v. Santander Consumer USA Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. Indiana
• Decided: November 20, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00212
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION

XAVIER JAMAL SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:25-CV-212-GSL-JEM

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.,

Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge John Martin’s Report and Recommendation, [DE 29], entered on November 4, 2025. For the reasons more fully explained in his Report, Judge Martin recommends that the District Court grant Defendant Chrysler Capital’s Motion to Dismiss [DE 17] and dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim. Judge Martin also recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) Motion to Amend or Alter Judgment, found at [22]. Having reviewed both Judge Martin’s Report and Recommendation and the related objections, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, [DE 29], in its entirety, GRANTS Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss, [DE 17], and DENIES Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) Motion, [DE 22]. The clerk is directed to close the case. DISCUSSION After referring a dispositive motion to a magistrate judge, a district court has discretion to accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the district court must undertake a de novo review “only of those portions of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific written objection is made.” United States v. Jones, 22 F.4th 667, 679 (7th Cir. 2022). See Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (citing Goffman v. Gross, 59 F.3d 668, 671 (7th Cir. 1995)). A district court judge may fulfill this obligation simply by “inform[ing] [this court] that he has conducted a de novo review.” Jones, 22 F.4th at 679 (citing Pinkston v. Madry, 440 F.3d 879, 894 (7th Cir. 2006)). If

no objection or only a partial objection is made, the court reviews those unobjected portions for clear error. Johnson, 170 F.3d at 739. Under the clear error standard, a court will only overturn a magistrate judge’s ruling if the court is left with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997). Here, Plaintiff filed his objections on November 12, 2025, at [DE 30], which the Court reviews de novo. First, Plaintiff objects to the Recommendation’s conclusion that reconsideration is unwarranted on the basis that Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion only repeated prior arguments. [DE 30]. This objection fails, as the Court has already disposed of the arguments put forth by Plaintiff, and has done so more than once. [See DE 8; DE 16]. Second, Plaintiff objects to the Recommendation’s conclusion that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted and that each of Plaintiff’s claims fail. [Id.]. However, the Court is satisfied with and persuaded by Judge Martin’s analysis of Plaintiff’s claims in his Report and Recommendation, which outlines with specificity why the claims fail. [See DE 29, Pages 6-12]. This Court agrees with those findings. Beyond Plaintiff’s objections, this Court reviewed Judge Martin’s findings for clear error and found none. CONCLUSION Having reviewed both Judge Martin’s Report and Recommendation and the related objections, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, [DE 29], in its entirety, GRANTS Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss, [DE 17], and DENIES Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) Motion, [DE 22]. The clerk is directed to close the case. SO ORDERED. ENTERED: November 19, 2025

/s/ GRETCHEN S. LUND Judge United States District Court