Jin-Jo v. Washington Mutual Inc. et al

Filing 127

ORDER granting 79 Motion to Set Aside Default. Adopting Report and Recommendation. Case is referred back to Magistrate Judge McCarthy for further proceedings. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 1/21/2010. (JMB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W E S T E R N DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

M E E JIN-JO, P la in tiff, v. ORDER 08-CV-230

JPMC SPECIALTY MORTGAGE, LLC, D e fe n d a n t.

T h is case was referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy, p u rs u a n t to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On September 8, 2009, defendant filed a m o tio n to set aside the entry of default. On September 14, 2009, plaintiff filed a m o tio n to recuse, and on September 22, 2009, she filed a motion to compel a p ro h ib ito ry injunction and a motion to nullify defendant's answer. On October 29, 2 0 0 9 , Magistrate Judge McCarthy filed a Report and Recommendation, re c o m m e n d in g that defendant's motion to set aside the entry of default be g ra n te d . The Magistrate Judge ordered that plaintiff's motion to recuse, to c o m p e l a prohibitory injunction and to nullify the defendant's answer be denied. P la in tiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation and Order on D e c e m b e r 28, 2009. Defendant filed a response thereto. P u rs u a n t to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo d e te rm in a tio n of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which o b je c tio n s have been made. Upon a de novo review of the Report and

Recommendation, and after reviewing the submissions, the Court adopts the p ro p o s e d findings of the Report and Recommendation. A c c o rd in g ly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge McCarthy's R e p o rt and Recommendation, defendant's motion to set aside the entry of default is granted. P u rs u a n t to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), the district court "may reconsider any p re tria l matter under this [section] where it has been shown that the magistrate's o rd e r is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." The Court has reviewed plaintiff's o b je c tio n s and Magistrate Judge McCarthy's Order. Upon such review, the Court fin d s that Magistrate Judge McCarthy's Order is neither clearly erroneous nor c o n tra ry to law. Accordingly, the Court affirms the Magistrate Judge's Order. The case is referred back to Magistrate Judge McCarthy for further p r o c e e d in g s .

SO ORDERED.

s/ Richard J. Arcara
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATED: January 20 , 2010

2