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, )
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?