Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee v. Watts et al

Filing 23

ORDER ADOPTING 22 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 3/13/16. (ljw, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR GSRPM MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1 MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-1 v. DOROTHY M. WATTS and TED F. WATTS ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' NO. 9:14-CV-153 ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On October 30, 2014, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”) filed this lawsuit against the Defendants, Dorothy M. Watts and Ted F. Watts. (Doc. No. 1.) Pursuant to General Order 14-10, the case was assigned to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge on October 31, 2014. The Defendants have not answered or otherwise appeared in the case. Accordingly, Deutsche Bank requested an entry of default, and the clerk of court made such entry on February 19, 2015. (Doc. Nos. 7, 8.) Deutsche Bank has filed a “Second Amended Motion for Default Judgment,” which is now pending before the court. (Doc. No. 18.) The court has received and considered the report from the magistrate judge, who recommends that Deutsche Bank’s “Second Amended Motion for Default Judgment” (Doc. No. 18) be denied. (Doc. No. 22.) No objections to the report and recommendation have been filed, and the time for doing so has passed. Furthermore, the court’s independent review confirms that the magistrate judge’s analysis is correct. . It is, therefore, ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. No. 22) is ADOPTED, and Deutsche Bank’s “Second Amended Motion for Default Judgment” (Doc. No. 18) is DENIED. SIGNED this 13th day of March, 2016. ____________________________________ MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER 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?