Jay v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION DIANA JAY, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-680-RWS-KPJ § SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, § § Defendant. § ORDER The above-titled and numbered action was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On August 23, 2021, the Magistrate Judge entered proposed findings of fact and recommendation (the “Report”) (Docket No. 41) that Defendant Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC’s (“SLS”) Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”) (Docket No. 33) be granted. 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 on 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. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the Motion (Docket No. 33) and the Magistrate Judge’s Report (Docket No. 41) and agrees with the Report. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 683 (1980) (“[T]he statute permits the district court to give 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, 423 U.S. 261, 275 (1976). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation (Docket No. 41) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. SLS’s Motion (Docket No. 33) is GRANTED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of September, 2021.

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