Dewitt v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee for MASTR Asset Backed Securities Trust 2007-NCW et al

Filing 25

ORDER adopting 22 Report and Recommendations; granting 10 Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing Plaintiff's 1 Complaint. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 3/18/2019. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. as Trustee )
for MASTR ASSET BACKED SECURITIES )
TRUST 2007-NCW, MORTGAGE
)
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS,
)
INC., SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, )
LLC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________)
JEAN DEWITT,

C.A. No. 18-094-WES

ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
On August 17, 2018, Magistrate Judge Lincoln D. Almond filed
a Report and Recommendation (“R. & R.”) (ECF No. 22) recommending
that the Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 10) because the Defendants executed a lawful foreclosure on
Plaintiff’s defaulted loan and that, pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws §
34-11-22, the foreclosure sale and deed constitute a “‘perpetual
bar” as to Plaintiff’s claim to legal title of the property located
at 177 Magill Street, Pawtucket, Rhode Island 02860.

Although

Plaintiff objected to the R. & R. (ECF No. 23), her objection was
neither timely nor in compliance with this Court’s local rules. As

1

such, Plaintiff has waived her right to district court review.
See LR Cv 72(d)(1).
The deadline for Plaintiff to file her objection to the R. &
R. was August 31, 2019 – fourteen days after Magistrate Judge
Almond issued his R. & R. Plaintiff’s objection was filed four
days later, on September 4, 2018, without any explanation or
commentary

about

its

tardiness.

Additionally,

Plaintiff’s

objection is substantively deficient: it does not include any
“specific objections” to the R. & R. and instead simply restates
her arguments in opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment. By failing to properly and timely object to the R. & R.,
Plaintiff has waived her right to district court review. LR Cv
72(d)(1) (“Failure to file specific objections and order the
transcript in a timely manner constitutes waiver of the right to
review by the district judge and the right to appeal the Court’s
decision.”).
Moreover, even if Plaintiff’s objection had been timely and
substantively adequate, the Court has reviewed the R. & R.’s
reasoning and agrees with Magistrate Judge Almond’s conclusions.
As to Count 1, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
(“MERS”) indisputably had the authority to assign the mortgage as
it

did

to

Wells

Fargo,

the

foreclosing

entity.

See

2013

Assignment, ECF No. 17-4; Aff. Nichole Renee Williams ¶ 5, ECF No.
14.

As

such,

there

is

no

factual
2

or

legal

foundation

for

Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief in Count
I.

As to Count 2, the record reflects that Plaintiff received a

valid and proper Notice of Default, which met the requirements of
Paragraphs 19 and 22.

See Mortgage Agreement 11, 13, ECF No. 12-

1; Notice of Default, ECF No. 13-2.

As such, Plaintiff has failed

to present any factual or legal basis upon which a finding of
breach of contract could reasonably be found.
Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections and
ACCEPTS the R. & R. (ECF No. 22) in its entirety and adopts its
recommendations and reasoning.

For the reasons articulated by

Magistrate Judge Almond, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 10) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is
DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: March 18, 2019

3