Adams v. AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
KRISTEEN B. ADAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INC. d/b/a GM
FINANCIAL,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 6:25-cv-262-JDK-KNM
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is Defendant AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. d/b/a GM
Financial’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint under Rule
12(b)(6). Docket No. 19. Plaintiff Kristeen B. Adams filed this breach of contract
action pursuant to several federal statutes. The case was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendations for the disposition of the case.
On December 12, 2025, Judge Mitchell issued a Report (Docket No. 32)
recommending that the motion to dismiss be granted and that Plaintiff’s claims be
dismissed with prejudice. No written objections have been filed, and the time for
filing objections has passed.
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
Case 6:25-cv-00262-JDK-KNM Document 33 Filed 01/11/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to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, if no objections to a
Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous,
abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and findings, 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. 32) as the opinion of this Court. Defendant’s motion
to dismiss (Docket No. 19) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with
prejudice. All other motions pending in this case are DENIED as moot.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11th	January, 2026.
Case 6:25-cv-00262-JDK-KNM Document 33 Filed 01/11/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>