Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Watts et al

Filing 40

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, For the foregoing reasons, the R&R is adopted, in its entirety, as the opinion of the Court. The parties are referred to Judge Reyes for continued pretrial management. Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this Order on all defendants and file proof of service on the docket by March 26, 2019. So Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 3/12/2019. (Lee, Tiffeny)

FILED
IN CLERK'S OFFICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

U.S. DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y.

*

MAR 1 3 2019

*

WELLS FARGO BANK,N.A.,

BROOKLYN OFFICE
Plaintiff,
ORDER

I6-CV-69I9(ENV)(RER)

-against-

ANDRE A. WATTS,aka ANDRE WATTS;
CRIMINAL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW

YORK; NEW YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL BOARD; and NEW YORK CITY
TRANSIT ADJUDICATION BUREAU,
Defendants.

VITALIANO, D.J.

Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.("Wells Fargo"), filed this action, on December 15,

2016, against defendants Andre Watts, Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York City
Environmental Control Board, and New York City Transit Adjudication Bureau, seeking to

foreclose its mortgage on the property located at 13-06 Caffrey Avenue in Far Rockaway, New

York, together with improvements to the property, and to recover costs. Compl., Dkt. I. On
May 5,2017, plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment, which the Court referred to the

assigned magistrate judge for report and recommendation. Mot.for Default J., Dkt. II; Mar. 27,
2018 Order. Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. issued his Report and Recommendation on
January 3, 2019(the "R&R"). Dkt. 33.

Judge Reyes recommended that the motion for default judgment be denied as to all
defendants. He found the motion to be moot as to individual defendant Watts, who had appeared

and successfully moved to vacate the entry of default. R&R at 2. As to the other defendants(the
"Municipal Defendants"), Judge Reyes found that, as junior lienholders, their "rights and

obligations are implicated only in the event of a foreclosure judgment against Defendant Watts."
Id. at 2-3. Since Watts had appeared in the action, ajudgment against the Municipal Defendants

"would be premature." Id. at 3. Notice of time to object to the R&R was given, but no party has
objected within the time to do so. See id. at 3-4; Aff. of Service, Dkt. 39.
Discussion

Where no party has objected to a report and recommendation, clear-error review applies.

See Dafeng Hengwei Textile Co. v. Aceco Indus. & Commercial Corp., 54 F. Supp. 3d 279,283
(E.D.N.Y. 2014). Having carefully reviewed the R&R in accordance with this standard, the
Court finds it to be correct, well-reasoned, and free of any clear error. The Court, therefore,

adopts the R&R,in its entirety, as the opinion of the Court.
Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the R&R is adopted, in its entirety, as the opinion ofthe Court.

The parties are referred to Judge Reyes for continued pretrial management. Plaintiff is directed
to serve a copy ofthis Order on all defendants and file proof ofservice on the docket by March
26,2019.
So Ordered.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
March 12, 2019

s/Eric N. Vitaliano
ERIC N. VITALIANO

United States District Judge