IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
PANTECH CORPORATION and § PANTECH WIRELESS, LLC, §
§ Plaintiffs, § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-CV-38-RWS-JBB v. §
§
ONEPLUS TECHNOLOGY §
(SHENZHEN) CO., LTD., §
§ Defendant. §
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Docket No. 23. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. On August 27, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending Defendant’s motion (Docket No. 23) be denied. Docket No. 99. To date, no objections have been filed.
Because no objections have been filed, any aggrieved party is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Moreover, except upon grounds of plain error, an aggrieved party is barred 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, Texas, 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 that the Report of the2 Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denie.d, 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 of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 99) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that Defendant OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 23) is DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 26th day of September, 2025.