1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

NICHOLAS VARELA, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

CENTRAL MUTUAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

 Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-148-JDK 

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Defendant Central Mutual Insurance Company removed this case to federal 

court on March 25, 2023. On April 1, 2023, Defendant moved to dismiss pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Docket No. 3. Thereafter, Plaintiff Nicolas 

Varela filed an amended complaint in federal court, again asserting claims for breach 

of contract, noncompliance with the Texas Insurance Code, breach of the duty of good 

faith and fair dealing, violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and 

common law fraud against Defendant. Docket No. 4. Defendant then moved to 

dismiss the first amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6). Docket No. 5. 

The Court referred Defendant’s motions to dismiss to United States Magistrate 

Judge John D. Love for proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition. 

Docket No. 7. On June 23, 2023, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that the 

Court deny Defendant’s motions to dismiss (Docket Nos. 3, 5) as moot and accept 

Case 6:23-cv-00148-JDK Document 10 Filed 07/11/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 636
2 

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (Docket No. 6-1) as the live pleading in this 

matter. No objections to the Report were filed and the time period for filing objections 

has passed. Defendant has since filed an answer to the second amended complaint. 

Docket No. 9. 

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superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to 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 in the prescribed period. 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), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 

918 (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 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. 8) as the findings of this Court. The 

Court DENIES Defendant’s motions to dismiss (Docket Nos. 3, 5) as moot. Plaintiff’s 

Case 6:23-cv-00148-JDK Document 10 Filed 07/11/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 637
3 

second amended complaint (Docket No. 6-1) is accepted as the live pleading in this 

matter. 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11th July, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00148-JDK Document 10 Filed 07/11/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 638