Abbott-Pope v. Texas Recovery Bureau Inc et al

Filing 138

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 105 Report and Recommendation, 117 Report and Recommendation. Therefore, pro se Plaintiff's motions for default judgment (Dkts. ##68, 69, 70, 71, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114 & 115) are DENIED.Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 7/14/2015. (kls, )

United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

JENNIFER K. ABBOTT-POPE
Plaintiff,
VS.
TEXAS RECOVERY
BUREAU, INC., et al.
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 4:14CV702
Judge Mazzant/Judge Bush

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 June 1, 2015, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing proposed
findings of fact and recommendations that pro se Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment
Against Beck & Masten Pontiac-GMC, Inc. (Dkt. #68), Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default
Judgment Against HSBC Finance Corporation and HSBC Auto Finance, Inc. (Dkt. #69), Plaintiff’s
Motion for Entry of Default Judgment Against Santander Consumer USA, Inc. (Dkt. #70), Plaintiff’s
Motion for Entry of Default Judgment Against Texas Recovery Bureau, Inc. (Dkt. #71), Plaintiff’s
Motion for Entry of Default Judgment Against Beck & Masten GMC, Inc. for Failure to Answer
Plaintiff’s First and Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. #89), Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default
Judgment Against HSBC Finance Corporation and HSBC Auto Finance, Inc. for Failure to Answer
Plaintiff’s First and Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. #90), Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default
Judgment Against Santander Consumer USA, Inc. for Failure to Answer Plaintiff’s First and Second

Amended Complaint (Dkt. #91), Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment Against Santander
Holding USA, Inc. for Failure to Answer Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Dkt. #92), and
Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment Against Portfolio Recovery Assocaites, LLC and
PRA Receivables Management, LLC for Failure to Answer Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint
(Dkt. #93) should be DENIED. See Dkt. #105. No objections were filed.
On June 4, 2015, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing proposed findings
of fact and recommendations that for the reasons set forth in the Court’s June 1, 2015 report and
recommendation, pro se Plaintiff’s additional motions for default judgment (Dkts. ##106, 107, 108,
109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114 & 115) should be DENIED. See Dkt. #117. No objections were filed.
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 recommendations as the findings and
.

conclusions of the court.
Therefore, pro se Plaintiff’s motions for default judgment (Dkts. ##68, 69, 70, 71, 89, 90,
91, 92, 93, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114 & 115) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 14th day of July, 2015.

___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2