Gonzalez Maass v. United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
PATRICIA GERALDINA GONZALEZ MAASS, §
§
Petitioner, §
§
VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-25-CV-259-FB
§
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §
§
Respondent. §
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Court has considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
filed in the above-captioned cause on December 12, 2025 (docket #8), concerning Defendant United
States’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Patricia Geraldina Gonzalez Maass’s Petition to Quash
Third-Party Summons (docket #4), and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File to Cure Late Service
(docket #3). According to the CM/ECF system, the Report and Recommendation sent by certified
mail, return receipt requested, to Plaintiff Patricia Geraldina Gonzalez Maas was received on
December 19, 2025 (docket #10). The record reflects Defendant United States of America was
served by electronic transmission on December 15, 2025. To date, the docket reflects no objections
to the Report and Recommendation have been received.1
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
Any party who desires to object to a Magistrate's findings and recommendations must serve and file his, her or its written	1
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 made by electronic means, “service is complete upon transmission.” Id. at (E). When the
mode of service is by electronic means, three days are no longer added to the time period to act after being served. See
Heverling v. McNeil Consumer Pharmaceuticals, Co., Civil Action No. 1:17-CV-1433, 2018 WL 1293304 at *2 n.3 (M.D.
Pa. Mar. 13, 2018) (“On April 28, 2016, the Supreme Court adopted changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In
pertinent part, the Court amended Rule 6(d) to remove ‘electronic means’ as a mode of service triggering an additional three
days to act when a responsive period commences upon service. See FED. R. CIV. P. 6, advisory committee’s note to 2016
amendment. The amendments took effect on December 1, 2016.”).
Case 5:25-cv-00259-FB Document 11 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 2

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and
recommendations to which objection is made."). The Court has reviewed the Report and finds its
reasoning to be neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219,
1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). The Recommendation shall therefore be accepted
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that Defendant United States’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff
Patricia Geraldina Gonzalez Maass’s Petition to Quash Third-Party Summons (docket #4) shall be
GRANTED and this case shall be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction. As
noted in the Report, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File to Cure Late Service (docket #3) is moot.2
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge filed in this cause on December 12, 2025 (docket #8), is ACCEPTED pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that Defendant United States’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Patricia
Geraldina Gonzalez Maass’s Petition to Quash Third-Party Summons (docket #4) is GRANTED and
this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that motions pending, if any, are DISMISSED AS MOOT, and
this case is now CLOSED.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this 6th day of January, 2026.
_________________________________________________
FRED BIERY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
According to the CM/ECF system, United States Magistrate Judge Richard B. Farrer entered a text	2
order on December 12, 2025, which mooted Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File to Cure Late Service (docket #3).
-2-
Case 5:25-cv-00259-FB Document 11 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 2