Opinion
1:17-CV-0882 (BKS/CFH)
05-11-2018
HARRIETT PIERCE, Plaintiff, v. HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC et al., Defendants.
Appearances: Harriett Pierce Saratoga Springs, NY Plaintiff, pro se Robert Guttmann Zeichner Ellman & Krause LLP 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Attorney for Defendants Homecomings Financial, LLC, Residential Funding Company, LLC and Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. Patrick G. Broderick Greenberg Traurig, LLP 200 Park Avenue, 39th Floor New York, NY 10166 Attorney for Defendants Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas and Mortgage Electronic Registration System
Appearances:
Harriett Pierce
Saratoga Springs, NY
Plaintiff, pro se Robert Guttmann
Zeichner Ellman & Krause LLP
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Attorney for Defendants Homecomings Financial, LLC,
Residential Funding Company, LLC and
Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. Patrick G. Broderick
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
200 Park Avenue, 39th Floor
New York, NY 10166
Attorney for Defendants Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas and
Mortgage Electronic Registration System Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, United States District Judge :
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
On December 4, 2017, the undersigned issued an Order, adopting the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel, that dismissed the Complaint and proposed Amended Complaint without prejudice, and gave Plaintiff thirty (30) days to file a proposed amended complaint that demonstrated this Court's jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 36). Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on January 4, 2018. (Dkt. No. 37). On February 1, 2018, Magistrate Judge Hummel issued a Report-Recommendation and Order recommending that the Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to replead. (Dkt. No. 41). Magistrate Judge Hummel advised the parties that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had fourteen days within which to file written objections to the Report-Recommendation, and that the failure to object within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. (Dkt. No. 41, p. 13).
Following the February 1, 2014, Report-Recommendation, Plaintiff filed a "Notice of Motion for Validation of Subscribed Oath(s) of Office and Validation of Fiduciary Insurance/Performance Bonds," (Dkt. No. 44), and a "Notice of Motion to Strike All Defendants Pleadings and Motion To Set Aside Void Order(s) and Judgments(s) and Declaration of Objection To Void Order(s) and Judgment(s)," (Dkt. No. 45). Even viewed liberally, these submissions cannot be construed to suggest an objection to the Report-Recommendation.
As no objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed, and the time for filing objections has expired, the Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error. See Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228-29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and found none, the Report-Recommendation is adopted in its entirety.
For these reasons, it is
ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 41) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 37) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and without leave to replead; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 38) is DENIED as moot; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's motions (Dkt. Nos. 44 and 45) are DENIED as moot; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order upon the parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 11, 2018
/s/_________
Brenda K. Sannes
U.S. District Judge