govinfo:USCOURTS-txwd-5_24-cv-00882-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
WILDFLOWER AESTHETICS AND §
WELLNESS CLINIC, PLLC, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-24-CA-882-FB
§
CUTERA, INC., §
 §
Defendant. §
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (ECF
No. 31) concerning Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 24). To
date no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been received.1 
 Because no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court
need not conduct a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("A judge of the court shall make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations
to which objection is made."). The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finds its
reasoning to be neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219,
1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 31) is ACCEPTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED in part and DENIED
 1 Any party who desires to object to a Magistrate's findings and recommendations must serve and file his, her or its written objections within
fourteen days after being served with a copy of the findings and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 635(b)(1). If service upon a party is made by mailing
a copy to the party’s last known address, “service is complete upon mailing.” FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b)(2)(C). If service is by electronic means, “service is
complete upon transmission.” Id. at (E). 

in part. It is granted to the extent that the Court has construed it as a Motion to Transfer under §
1404(a) and for which the remedy of transfer is warranted. It is otherwise denied, and the denial is
without prejudice in order that Defendant Cutera may re-raise the issues raised in its Motion to Dismiss
at another time and in the proper forum. Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, as that division
encompasses San Mateo County
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that motions pending with the Court, if any, are Dismissed as Moot
and this case is CLOSED.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this 8th day of June, 2026. 
 _________________________________________________
 FRED BIERY
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
 
.
 
2

Passage view · GavelSight