A.H. Beck Foundation Co., Inc. v. Matrix North American Construction, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION A.H. BECK FOUNDATION CO., § INC., d/b/a FD Rentals, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-25-cv-00906-FB § MATRIX NORTH AMERICAN § CONSTRUCTION, INC., § § Defendant. § ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, filed in the above-captioned cause on October 10, 2025. (Docket no. 14). The Report and Recommendation concerns Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (Docket nos. 8 & 13).1 To date, no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been received.2 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 1On October 3, 2025, the Magistrate Judge ordered Defendant to supplement its Motion to Dismiss (docket no. 8) by filing on the record a copy of its Terms and Conditions, which it refers to in the motion as Exhibit B. (See Docket No. 12). Defendant complied by filing an “Amended Motion to Dismiss,” which is identical to original, save for the inclusion of the initially missing document. (See docket no. 13). The undersigned, as did the Magistrate Judge, thus construes the “Amended Motion to Dismiss” (id.) as no more than a supplement to the original motion. Accordingly, this Order applies to both pleadings. 2Any 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 by electronic means, “service is complete upon transmission.” Id. at (E). to which objection is made."). The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finds its reasoning to be neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (docket no. 14) is ACCEPTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (docket nos. 8 & 13) is GRANTED in PART. Specifically, this case is TRANSFERRED to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In light of this transfer, the remainder of the motion is DENIED as MOOT. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that remaining motions pending with the Court, if any, are Dismissed as Moot and this case is CLOSED. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 28th day of October, 2025. Feet CF D BIERY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE