Earley v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

E.D. Virginia

Earley v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

DecidedJanuary 13, 2022

Docket1:21-cv-01437

StatusUnknown

This text of Earley v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (Earley v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Earley v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, (E.D. Va. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division

MARLENE S. EARLEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-1437 (RDA/TCB) ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING ) AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) issued by Magistrate Judge Theresa Buchanan on December 29, 2021. Dkt. 12. In this foreclosure sale case, Judge Buchanan recommends that the Court deny Marlene S. Earley’s (“Plaintiff”) Emergency Motion to stay the foreclosure proceedings on her home and the garnishment of her Social Security benefits. Furthermore, this Court recognizes that the foreclosure sale allegedly did not go forward on December 30, 2021 and “a new sale date has not been scheduled.” Dkt. 22 at 2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), the deadline for submitting objections to Judge Buchanan’s Recommendation was January 12, 2022. To date, no objections have been filed. After reviewing the record and Judge Buchanan’s Recommendation, and finding no clear error,1 the Court hereby APPROVES and ADOPTS the Recommendation. Dkt. 12. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. 3) is DENIED.

1 See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that in the absence of any objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, the Court “need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation’”). The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this Order to counsel of record and to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff at her address of record. It is SO ORDERED. Alexandria, Virginia January 13, 2022

Rossie D, Alston, Jr. United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division

MARLENE S. EARLEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-1437 (RDA/TCB) ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING ) AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) issued by Magistrate Judge Theresa Buchanan on December 29, 2021. Dkt. 12. In this foreclosure sale case, Judge Buchanan recommends that the Court deny Marlene S. Earley’s (“Plaintiff”) Emergency Motion to stay the foreclosure proceedings on her home and the garnishment of her Social Security benefits. Furthermore, this Court recognizes that the foreclosure sale allegedly did not go forward on December 30, 2021 and “a new sale date has not been scheduled.” Dkt. 22 at 2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), the deadline for submitting objections to Judge Buchanan’s Recommendation was January 12, 2022. To date, no objections have been filed. After reviewing the record and Judge Buchanan’s Recommendation, and finding no clear error,1 the Court hereby APPROVES and ADOPTS the Recommendation. Dkt. 12. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. 3) is DENIED.

1 See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that in the absence of any objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, the Court “need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation’”). The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this Order to counsel of record and to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff at her address of record. It is SO ORDERED. Alexandria, Virginia January 13, 2022

Rossie D, Alston, Jr. United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Earley v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/earley-v-us-department-of-housing-and-urban-development-vaed-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack