Peterson v. USAA Federal Savings Bank

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
RAPHEAL PETERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
USAA FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-00393-
SDJ-AGD
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING THE REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Came on for consideration the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the
United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this matter having been heretofore
referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On June 20, 2025, the
Magistrate Judge entered a Report, (Dkt. #19), recommending that Plaintiff Rapheal
Peterson's Motion to Remand, (Dkt. #8), be denied, that Defendant USAA Federal
Savings Bank’s Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. #5), be granted, that Plaintiff's Motion to
Strike Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and All Subsequent Filings and Supplemental
Notice of Procedural Default in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, (Dkt. #9),
and Motion for Expedited Ruling on Motion to Remand and Supplemental Notice in
Support of Motion to Strike Defendant's Untimely Filings, (Dkt. #14), be denied as
moot, and that this case be dismissed with prejudice. On June 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed
an objection to the Report (Dkt. #20). On July 11, 2025, Defendant filed a Response
(Dkt. #21). On July 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Reply (Dkt. #22).
Case 4:25-cv-00393-SDJ-AGD Document 23 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 2 -
Having received the Report of the Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. #19), Plaintiff’s
objection, (Dkt. #20), Defendant’s Response, (Dkt. #21), Plaintiff’s Reply, (Dkt. #22),
and having conducted a de novo review, the Court is of the opinion that the findings
and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the Magistrate
Judge’s Report as the findings and conclusions of the Court.
It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, (Dkt. #8), is
DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. #5), is
GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss and All Subsequent Filings and Supplemental Notice of Procedural
Default in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, (Dkt. #9), and Motion for
Expedited Ruling on Motion to Remand and Supplemental Notice in Support of
Motion to Strike Defendant's Untimely Filings, (Dkt. #14), are DENIED as moot.
It is finally ORDERED that Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Case 4:25-cv-00393-SDJ-AGD Document 23 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>