Swanson v. Citizens National Bank

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANGELO DIVISION
SUSAN SWANSON, |
Plaintiff,
v. No. 6:24-CV-058-H
CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK,
Defendants.
ORDER
On August 20, 2026, the United States Magistrate Judge issued Findings,
Conclusions, and a Recommendation (FCR) that this case be dismissed with prejudice for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or, alternatively, that dismissal is independently
warranted based on insufficient process and insufficient service of process. Dkt. No. 23; see
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (4), (5). No objections were filed.'_ Where no specific objections
are filed within the 14-day period, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s FCR only for
plain error. Serrano v. Customs & Border Patrol, U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 975 F.3d 488, 502
(5th Cir. 2020). The District Court has reviewed the FCR for plain error. After its review,
the Court adopts the FCR in part and modifies it in part.
' On September 2, Susan Swanson filed a “Motion to Request Additional Time,” alleging that she
never received Citizens National Bank’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 21). Dkt. No. 24. Although
this filing is clearly not an objection, to the extent Swanson meant it as such, it is not specific and
do not satisfy Swanson’s obligation to indicate the “specified proposed findings or
recommendation to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc),
superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Additionally, because the Court finds it
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Swanson’s complaint, any potential objection is overruled as
moot.
Case 6:24-cv-00058-H-BU Document 27 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID <pageID>

Judge Parker recommended that the Court dismiss “[Swanson’s] [c]lomplaint with
prejudice.” Dkt. No. 23 at 1. However, the Court will dismiss Swanson’s claims against
Citizens National Bank (CNB) without prejudice. A court's dismissal ofa case resulting
from a lack of subject matter jurisdiction “is not a determination of the merits and does not
prevent the plaintiff from pursuing a claim in a court that does have proper jurisdiction.”
Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (Sth Cir. 2001). As such, “any dismissal
predicated on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) must be without prejudice.” Mitchell v. Bailey, 982
F.3d 937, 944 (Sth Cir. 2020).
With that modification, Judge Parker’s FCR is adopted. Swanson’s claims against
CNB are dismissed without prejudice. All pending motions are denied as moot.
So ordered on October a , 2026.
JAMES WESLEY HENDRIX
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
/	y
Case 6:24-cv-00058-H-BU Document 27 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID <pageID>