DCR Real Estate VI Sub II LLC v. Hudak and Dawson Development Company LLC et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING and ACCEPTING the Magistrate Judge's 32 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins on 6/16/2015. (JLC)
2015 Jun-16 AM 10:40
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
DCR REAL ESTATE VI SUB II,
HUDAK AND DAWSON
LLC, ET AL,
) Case No.: 4:14-CV-2226-VEH
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
The magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation on May 12, 2015,
[DCR Real Estate VI Sub II, LLC’s (“DCR’s”)] motion for
summary judgment, (doc. 29), be GRANTED, its motion for
default judgment, (doc. 31), be GRANTED, and judgment be
entered in favor of DCR as against Defendants in the amount of
$339,820.36, representing $288,805.55 in amounts due under the
Loan and $51,014.81 in attorneys’ fees and expenses, plus
additional pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest.
(Doc. 32 at 7) (bold in original). The time for filing objections to the
recommendation has expired, and no objections have been filed.
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the
court file, including the report and recommendation, the Court is of the opinion
that the magistrate judge's report is due to be and is hereby ADOPTED and his
recommendation is ACCEPTED. The Court EXPRESSLY FINDS that there
are no genuine issues of material fact and that DCR is entitled to both judgment
as a matter of law, and to judgment by default. Accordingly, DCR’s motion for
summary judgment is due to be GRANTED and DCR’s motion for default
judgment is due to be GRANTED. Judgment is due to be entered on both
pursuant to the terms stated by the magistrate. A Final Judgment will be entered
consistent with those terms.
DONE this the 16th day of June, 2015.
VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?