REAGAN v. US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION et al

Filing 74

ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE re 67 Report and Recommendations Re: 35 Motion to Dismiss; 42 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; 61 Motion for Default Judgment; and 64 Motion for Reconsideration. By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (MSH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of Maine
DEBRA J. REAGAN,
Plaintiff
v.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, et als.,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:14-CV-00059-GZS

ORDER AFFIRMING THE
RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on September 12, 2014, his
Recommended Decision (ECF No. 67). Plaintiff filed her Objection to the Recommended Decision
(ECF No. 69) on September 25, 2014. Plaintiff filed two Notices of Correction to her Objection
(ECF Nos. 70 and 71) on September 27, 2014 and September 30, 2014, respectively. The MERS
Defendants filed their Response to Plaintiff’s Objection to the Recommended Decision (ECF No.
72) on October 14, 2014. The BANA Defendants filed their Response to Plaintiff’s Objection to the
Recommended Decision (ECF No. 73) on October 14, 2014.
I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together
with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the
Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision; and I concur with the recommendations of the United
States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision, and determine that
no further proceeding is necessary.
1. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is
hereby AFFIRMED.

2. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 35 and 42) are
GRANTED.
3. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions for Judgment of Default or Summary
Judgment (ECF Nos. 61/64) are hereby DENIED.
4. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions (ECF Nos. 38 and 43) are not responsive
pleadings, are considered to be nondispositive and are DENIED.
5. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Have Defendant Vargas’s Attorney
Answer (ECF No. 34) is MOOT.

/s/George Z. Singal_____________
U.S. District Judge
Dated this 20th day of October, 2014.