IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN DIVISION 

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., § 

PLAINTIFF, § 

§ 

V. § 

§ 

SUSIE M. ESTRADA, § 

DEFENDANT. § 

F I ; 1) 

2921MAR23 PM :i 

CAUSE NO. 1:20-CV-196-LY 

ORDER 

1'; F 11.XA 

-- .... -.-...S ..... 

Before the court in the above-styled and numbered cause is Defendant Susie M. Estrada's 

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction under Rule 1 2(b)( 1); Personal 

Jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2); Failure to State a Claim under Rule 12(b)(6); Failure to Join a 

Party under Rule 12(b)(7)/RuIe 19; and Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens filed March 

12, 2020 (Doc. #5) and all related filings. 

The motion was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for report and 

recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Loc. R. W.D. Tex. App'x C, R. 1. 

The magistrate judge signed a report and recommendation on February 26, 2021 (Doc. #14), 

recommending that this court grant in part and deny in part Estrada's motion to dismiss. 

Specifically, the magistrate judge recommends that the motion be granted as to the breach of 

contract claim, and that claim should be dismissed with prejudice. The magistrate judge 

recommends the motion should be denied in all other respects. 

A party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and 

recommendations of a magistrate judge within 14 days after being served with a copy of the report 

and recommendation and thereby secure de novo review by the district court. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A party's failure to timely file written objections to the 

proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a report and recommendation bars that 
party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed 

factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court. See Douglass v. United 

ServicesAutoAss'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). 

The record shows that all parties had notice of the report and recommendations by February 

26, 2021, and that objections were due on or before March 12, 2021. Plaintiff Bank of America, 

N.A. ("Bank of America") filed objections to the report and recommendation on March 12, 2021 

(Doe. #15). In light of the objections, the court undertakes a de novo review of the record and 

applicable law. 

The court is of the opinion that the objections do not raise issues that were not adequately 

addressed in the report and recommendation. Therefore, finding no error, the court accepts and 

adopts the report and recommendation filed in this case for substantially the reasons stated therein. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Bank of America's objections (Doc. #15) to the report and 

recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are OVERRULED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge (Doe. #14) is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED by the court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Estrada's motion to dismiss (Doe. #5) is GRANTED 

IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the motion is GRANTED as to the breach of 

contract claim, which is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. In all other respects, the motion is 

DENIED. Bank of America's sole remaining claim is the claim for declaratory judgment. 

SIGNED this day of March, 2021. 

UN ED STAT