Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fdic As Receiver For Amtrust Bank v. Michael Hodge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


April 29, 2013

FDIC AS RECEIVER FOR AMTRUST BANK, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL HODGE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Margo K. Brodie, United States District Judge:

MEMORDANDUM & ORDER

AmTrust Bank ("AmTrust") filed a Complaint on July 28, 2009, against Defendant Lea Jordan and others. (Docket Entry No. 1.) On January 7, 2010, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), as Receiver for AmTrust Bank, was substituted as Plaintiff. (January 7, 2010 Order.) According to the Complaint, the defendants, including Jordan, defrauded AmTrust out of millions of dollars through a series of fraudulent mortgage loans. (Docket Entry No. 1.) Defendant Jordan filed an answer to the original Complaint and asserted cross-claims against the other Defendants on July 9, 2010. (Docket Entry No. 130.) On July 31, 2012 and August 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint and a corrected Amended Complaint against Jordan and others. (Docket Entries Nos. 210 and 211.) Jordan never answered or sought to dismiss the Amended Complaint.*fn1 By Report and Recommendation ("R&R") dated March 27, 2013, Magistrate Judge James Orenstein recommended that the Court sua sponte strike Defendant Jordan's answer to the Complaint and direct the Clerk to enter her default. (Docket Entry No. 248.) Defendant Jordan did not file any objections.

A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's recommended ruling "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge."

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). "Failure to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation within the prescribed time limit 'may operate as a waiver of any further judicial review of the decision, as long as the parties receive clear notice of the consequences of their failure to object.'" Sepe v. New York State Ins. Fund, 466 F. App'x 49, 50 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997)); see also Wagner & Wagner, LLP v. Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis, Brittingham, Gladd & Carwile, P.C., 596 F.3d 84, 92 (2d Cir. 2010) ("[A] party waives appellate review of a decision in a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation if the party fails to file timely objections designating the particular issue.").

This Court has reviewed the unopposed R&R, and, finding no clear error, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Orenstein's R&R in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court strikes Defendant Jordan's answer, and the Clerk of Court is directed to enter a default against Defendant Lea Jordan.

SO ORDERED:

MARGO K. BRODIE United States District Judge


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.