Cid v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Indenture Trustee On Behalf Of The Holders Of The Accredited Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-2 Asset Backed Notes et al

Filing 31

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING 12 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 4/14/14. (ljw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
MARY E. CID
V.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE
ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF
THE ACCREDITED MORTGAGE
LOAN TRUST 2006-2 ASSET BACKED
NOTES, AND SELECT PORTFOLIO
SERVICING, INC.

'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'

9:12-CV-192

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On October 1, 2013, this pro se wrongful foreclosure action was referred for all pretrial
matters to United States Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn. On March 13, 2014, the magistrate
judge filed his report (Doc. No. 28), recommending that this court grant the Defendants’ motion
for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 9.) On April 7, 2014, the Plaintiff filed timely objections to the
report and recommendation. (Doc. No. 30.)
A party who files timely written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation is entitled to a de novo determination of those findings or recommendations to
which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(c) (Supp. IV 2011); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2)–(3). “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. Wainwright, 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).
The Plaintiff’s objections seek to clarify the amount she owes the loan servicer and
complain that the loan servicer failed to provide her with accurate monthly mortgage statements.

She also claims her home has increased in value. These objections are irrelevant and fail to
identify any specific issue of law or fact among those set forth in the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation with which the Plaintiff disagrees. Thus, the Plaintiff’s objections fail to invoke
her right to a de novo review of the report and recommendation. See Nettles, 677 F.2d at 410 n.8.
Nonetheless, the court has undertaken a de novo review of the report and recommendation,
and the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions are correct. See
Douglass, 79 F.3d at 1429 (noting that a district court may alternatively find the magistrate judge’s
findings and conclusions were correct even though a party did not properly object to the report and
recommendation).
It is, therefore, ORDERED that Cid’s objections (Doc. No. 30) are OVERRULED; the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (Doc. No. 28) is ADOPTED; the Defendants’
motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 9) is GRANTED; and Cid’s claims are DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 14 day of April, 2014.

___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge

2 of 2