Jay v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

DIANA JAY, § §

§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19-CV-00680-RWS-KPJ Plaintiff, §

§ v. §

§ SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, § § Defendant. §

ORDER Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 24), recommending Defendant Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket No. 12) be denied. Neither party has filed objections during the prescribed period. Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report have been filed, neither party is entitled to de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions and recommendations, and except upon grounds of plain error, they are barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the Magistrate Judge and agrees with it. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 683 (1980) (“[T]he statute permits the district court to give to the magistrate’s proposed findings of fact and recommendations ‘such weight as [their] merit commands and the sound discretion of the judge warrants, . . .’ ”) (quoting Mathews v. Weber, 23 U.S. 261, 275 (1976)). It is therefore ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report (Docket No. 24) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court and Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket No. 12) is DENIED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 21st day of September, 2020.

forher LU e ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2