Anderson v. Monterey Financial Services, LLC

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
JOHN M. ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MONTEREY FINANCIAL SERVICES,
LLC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 6:25-cv-102-JDK-JDL
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On March 26, 2025, Plaintiff John M. Anderson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action
against Defendant Monterey Financial Services, LLC (“Defendant”), alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. §§ 227,
et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692, et seq.,
and the Texas Debt Collection Act (“TDCA”), Texas Finance Code §§ 392, et
seq. Docket No. 1. The Court referred this matter to United States Magistrate
Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations
for the disposition.
Defendant Monterey Financial Services, LLC filed a motion for
summary judgment. Docket No. 23. On January 16, 2026, Judge Love issued a
report and recommendation recommending that Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment be granted and that Plaintiff’s TCPA and FDCPA claims be dismissed
with prejudice and Plaintiff’s TDCA claims should be dismissed without prejudice.
Docket No. 31. Neither party has filed objections and the time-frame for doing so has
passed.
Case 6:25-cv-00102-JDK-JDL Document 33 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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
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superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to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 the standard of review is
“clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” if no objections to a
Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed). Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and the record in this case, 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. 31. Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment (Docket No. 23) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s TCPA and FDCPA
claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff’s TDCA claims are DISMISSED
without prejudice.
All other motions which may be pending are DENIED.
Case 6:25-cv-00102-JDK-JDL Document 33 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5th	February, 2026.
Case 6:25-cv-00102-JDK-JDL Document 33 Filed 02/05/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>