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)

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