Mosley v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC

Filing 23

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 22 ) is ADOPTED. Defendant Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC's Motion for Prevailing Party Attorney's Fees and Costs (Doc. # 12 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 1/20/2017. (DRW)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION JOHN MOSLEY, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:16-cv-2086-T-33AAS BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant. _____________________________/ ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 22), entered on January 5, 2017, recommending that Defendant Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC’s Motion for Prevailing Party Attorney’s Fees and Costs (Doc. # 12) be denied. No objections have been filed. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and denies the Motion. Discussion On February 27, 2015, Plaintiff John Mosley executed a deed in lieu of foreclosure, along with a deed in lieu of foreclosure agreement. (Doc. # 12-1). Thereafter, on June 24, 2016, Mosley alleging filed Bayview the instant violated the action Real against Estate Bayview, Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605(k), in state court. (Doc. # 2). Bayview removed to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, served Mosley’s counsel with a twentyone day safe harbor letter and proposed motion for sanctions, causing Mosley to dismiss the action with prejudice on July 27, 2016. (Doc. ## 1, 10, 11). Bayview then moved for attorney’s fees in the amount of $9,709.50 and costs in the amount of $426.48. (Doc. # 12). The Motion was referred to Judge Sansone. (Doc. # 13). After being fully briefed, Judge Sansone entered her Report and Recommendation, recommending that Bayview’s Motion be denied. (Doc. # 22). The time for filing objections has passed and neither party has filed any objections. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify Recommendation. 28 the magistrate U.S.C. § judge’s 636(b)(1); Report and Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district 2 judge reviews 28 legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (Table). After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings, conclusions and recommendations, and giving de novo review to matters of law, the Court accepts the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge and the recommendation of the magistrate judge. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 22) is ADOPTED. (2) Defendant Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC’s Motion for Prevailing Party Attorney’s Fees and Costs (Doc. # 12) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 20th day of January, 2017. 3

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?