Bank of America, N.A. v. Ingram

Filing 31

ORDER overruling objections and adopting 26 Report and Recommendation. Order granting 18 Motion to Remand and granting in part/denying in part 21 Motion to Remand. This action is remanded to the Justice of the Peace Court of Precinct 1, Place 1, of Jefferson County, TX. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 6/29/12. (tkd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. as servicing
agent for The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a
The Bank of New York, as trustee for the
certificateholders of the CWABS Inc.,
asset-backed certificates, series 2006-19,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LAWRENCE INGRAM,
Defendant,
v.
BUTLER & HOSCH, P.A. et al.,
Third Party Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

NO. 1:12-cv-55

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On February 2, 2012, this case was referred for all pretrial matters to the Honorable United
States Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn. Pending are Plaintiff Bank of America N.A.’s (Bank of
America), as serving agent for The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York, as
trustee for the certificateholders of the CWABS Inc., asset-backed certificates, series 2006-19,
(collectively Plaintiffs) “Motion to Remand” (Docket No. 18) and Third Party Defendants Butler &
Hosch, P.A. and Beatrice Grevel’s “Motion to Remand” (Docket No. 21). The Court has received
and considered the report (Docket No. 26) of the magistrate judge, who recommends that the
Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Remand” (Docket No. 18) should be granted and the Third Party Defendants’

Page 1 of 3

“Motion to Remand” (Docket No. 21) should be granted in part and denied in part. The magistrate
judge concluded that this action should be remanded to the Justice of the Peace Court of Precinct 1,
Place 1, of Jefferson County, Texas, but attorneys’ fees and costs should not be awarded to the Third
Party Defendants.
On May 30, 2012, pro se Defendant Lawrence Ingram filed a “Petition to Strike Report and
Recommendation” (Docket No. 29). The Court construes the pleading as an objection to the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Neither the Plaintiffs nor the Third Party Defendants
filed objections to the report and recommendation.
A party who files timely written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation is entitled to a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which the
party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). “Frivolous, conclusive[,]
or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Battle v. United States Parole
Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8
(5th Cir. 1982) (en banc)).
The Defendant does not identify any specific issue of law or fact, among those set forth in
the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, with which he disagrees. Therefore, the
Defendant’s objection fails to invoke the court’s authority to review the report and recommendation.
Nonetheless, the Court has undertaken its own review of the record, and the Court concludes
that the magistrate judge’s analysis is correct. The Defendant’s objection is without merit.
It is ORDERED that the Defendant’s objection (Docket No. 29) is OVERRULED, the
report and recommendation (Docket No. 26) of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED, the Plaintiffs’
“Motion to Remand” (Docket No. 18) is GRANTED, and the Third Party Defendants’ “Motion to
Page 2 of 3

Remand” (Docket No. 21) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is further ORDERED
that this lawsuit is REMANDED to the Justice of the Peace Court of Precinct 1, Place 1, of Jefferson
County, Texas.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 29 day of June, 2012.

___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge

Page 3 of 3