Lohri v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc. d/b/a Bank of America, N.A./ BAC Home Loans Servicing LP et al

Filing 84

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE for 53 Report and Recommendation; denying 24 Motion for Default Judgment filed by Debra A. Lohri, 56 Report and Recommendation; 57 Report and Recommendatio n; denying 25 Motion for Default Judgment filed by Debra A. Lohri; denying 23 Motion for Default Judgment filed by Debra A. Lohri. Therefore, Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendant Corelogic (Dkt. 24) is DENIED, Plaintiff� 39;s Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendant Recontrust (Dkt. 25) is DENIED, and Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendant U.S. Bank, N.A. (Dkt. 23)is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Richard A. Schell on 9/30/2013. (kls, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

DEBRA A. LOHRI

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Plaintiff,
VS.
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.,
et al.
Defendants.

Case No. 4:12cv568

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Came on for consideration the reports of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action,
this matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636. On January 25, 2013, a report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing
proposed findings of fact and recommendations that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment as to
Defendant Corelogic (Dkt. 24) be DENIED (see Dkt. 53), a report of the Magistrate Judge was
entered containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Default Judgment as to Defendant Recontrust (Dkt. 25) be DENIED (see Dkt. 56), and a report of
the Magistrate Judge was entered containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that
Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendant U.S. Bank, N.A. (Dkt. 23) be DENIED
without prejudice (see Dkt. 57).

1

Having received the reports of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto
having been timely filed, this court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s reports as the findings and
conclusions of the court.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendant Corelogic (Dkt. 24) is
DENIED, Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendant Recontrust (Dkt. 25) is
DENIED, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment as to Defendant U.S. Bank, N.A. (Dkt. 23)
is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

.

SIGNED this the 30th day of September, 2013.

_______________________________
RICHARD A. SCHELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2