Infante v. Samara Portfolio Management, L.L.C. et al

Filing 63

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that 34 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Affirmative Defenses and 37 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Liability and Damages be granted. Signed by Judge Marcia A. Crone on 3/23/17. (mrp, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SHIRLEY INFANTE, Plaintiff, versus SAMARA PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ONWUTEAKA, P.C., JOSEPH ONWUTEAKA, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants. EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS § § § § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-00324 MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY AND DAMAGES Plaintiff Shirley Infante brought this complaint alleging that a previously filed lawsuit brought against her by Joseph Onwuteaka of the Law Office of Joseph Onwuteaka, P.C., violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Liability and Damages (Doc. No. 37) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Affirmative Defenses. (Doc. No. 34.) The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings and all available evidence. Defendants filed “Objections to Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge on Plaintiff’s Motions for Partial Summary Judgment.” This requires a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the court concludes defendants’ objections are without merit. Defendants objections are conclusory one sentence arguments. “Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings [to which they object.] Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Nettles v. Wainright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Notwithstanding the conclusory nature of the objections, after a de novo review, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusions are correct. ORDER Accordingly, Defendants’ objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED. . SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 7th day of September, 2004. SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 23rd day of March, 2017. ________________________________________ MARCIA A. CRONE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?