IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

ORR AUTO, INC. § 

D/B/A ORR VOLKSWAGENOF TEXARKANA§

§ 

V. § CASE NO. 5:24-CV-00029-RWS-JBB

§ 

AUTOPLEX EXTENDED SERVICES, LLC § 

D/B/A MOTOR VEHICLE SERVICES § 

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. Docket No. 9. The abovecaptioned case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Boone Baxter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636.

On February 29, 2024, Plaintiff Orr Auto, Inc. d/b/a Orr Volkswagen of Texarkana filed a 

complaint against Autoplex Extended Services, LLC d/b/a Motor Vehicle Services, asserting

claims for unfair competition and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 

1125(a), as well as common law claims of unfair competition, trademark infringement, and unjust 

enrichment under Texas law. Docket No. 1. Plaintiff properly served Defendant but Defendant did 

not respond to the complaint by the required April 30, 2024 deadline. Docket Nos. 5, 9. The Clerk 

entered default as to Defendant (Docket No. 7) and the Magistrate Judge set a hearing for

Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. Docket Nos. 9, 11, 14. 

Defendant received notice of the hearing but did not appear. See Docket Nos. 12, 14. On 

October 21, 2024 the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation, recommending 

Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment be granted. Docket No. 17. Finding good cause exists to 

enter default judgment against Defendant, the Magistrate Judge recommended the Court enter 

judgment in favor of Plaintiff, as to liability only, and enter the Order Granting Default Judgment 

Case 5:24-cv-00029-RWS-JBB Document 20 Filed 11/26/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

137
attached to Plaintiff’s motion, reserving for a later trial the issues of damages, costs, exceptionality, 

and permanent injunction. Id. at 1–2, 14–15. To date, Defendant has failed to appear, plead, or 

otherwise defend this lawsuit and is in default.

Defendant received a copy of this Report on October 28, 2024 (Docket No. 18) but filed no 

objections. Because no objections have been received, Defendant is barred fromde novo review by 

the District Court of the Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations; and, 

except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and 

legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 

858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017); Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, Case No. 4:21-CV-00203-RAS, 2021 

WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021). 

The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Report and Recommendation of 

the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined the report of the Magistrate 

Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 

U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s report are filed, the standard of 

review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”). Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 

17) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. Contemporaneously with this Order, the

Court is entering the Order Granting Default Judgment attached to Plaintiff’s motion, reserving 

for a later trial the issues of damages, costs, exceptionality, and permanent injunction. 

Page 2 of 2

.

 

____________________________________

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 26th day of November, 2024.

Case 5:24-cv-00029-RWS-JBB Document 20 Filed 11/26/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

138