Madenwald et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al
Filing
52
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 46 Report and Recommendations, Granting 37 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., U.S. Bank, National Association, As Trustee For WAMU Mortgage Pass Through Certificate For WMALT Series 2007-OA3 Trust, Granting 51 Motion to Strike, filed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., U.S. Bank, National Association, As Trustee For WAMU Mortgage Pass Through Certificate For WMALT Series 2007-OA3 Trust. Defendants Motion for Summary Judgmentis GRANTED and Plaintiffs case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 7/18/14. (cm, )
**NOT FOR PRINTED PUBLICATION**
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
MARK L. MADENWALD and
ALMEDA F. MADENWALD,
Plaintiffs,
V.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
U.S. BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR
WAMU MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH
CERTIFICATE FOR WMALT SERIES
2007-OA3 TRUST, and CHICAGO TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-136
Judge Clark/Judge Mazzant
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Came on for consideration the report 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 May 14, 2014, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing
proposed findings of fact and recommendations that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
[Doc. #37] be granted [Doc. #46]. On May 23, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an opposed motion to
enlarge time to respond to the report and recommendation [Doc. #47]. On May 28, 2014, the
court granted the Plaintiffs’ request and gave Plaintiffs until June 4, 2014, to file their objections.
On June 5, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation [Doc. #49]. After the Clerk notified Plaintiffs that the document had been filed
1
under the wrong event, Plaintiffs refill the objections on June 6, 2014 [Doc. #50]. On June 9,
2014, Defendants filed a motion to strike the objections as untimely. Plaintiffs filed no response
to the motion to strike nor did they request that the court consider the late objections. The
objections were filed late and will not be considered by the court. The court grants the motion to
strike.
Having received the report 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 report as the findings and
conclusions of the court.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Objection to
Report and Recommendation on Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #51] is GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #37]
is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 18 day of July, 2014.
___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge
2
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?