United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
Hannah Lauck, United States District Judge.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company's ("Deutsche
Bank") brings this action against pro se
Defendant Margaret L. Fegely seeking a declaratory judgment
and to quiet title on property purchased at an August 22,
2012 foreclosure sale.
February 17, 2016, Deutsche Bank filed a Complaint in the
Circuit Court for Hanover County. (ECF No. 1-2.) On March 9,
2016, Fegely removed the case to this Court. (ECF No. 1.) On
August 22, 2016, Deutsche Bank filed a Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings, (ECF No. 2), and on September 13, 2016, Fegely
filed a Motion for Entry of Default, (ECF No. 4). The Court
denied both motions-as well as a demurrer Deutsche Bank had
filed prior to removal-without prejudice after a review of
the pleadings raised doubts that removal was proper and that
the Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over Deutsche
Bank's claims. (Feb. 16, 2017 Mem. Order, ECF No. 15.) On
May 5, 2017, after soliciting briefing from the parties, the
Court determined that it possessed subject-matter
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (May 5, 2017 Mem.
Order, ECF No. 21.)
15, 2017, Fegely filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 22.)
Deutsche Bank responded, (ECF No. 24), and Fegely replied,
(ECF No. 25). On January 19, 2018, Deutsche Bank again filed
a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (ECF No. 28.) Fegely
responded, (ECF No. 32), and Deutsche Bank replied, (ECF No.
34). Separately, on January 30, 2018, Fegely filed a
Cross-Motion to Deny Deutsche Bank's Motion and for
Judgment and Subsequent Remedy for Lack of Standing, for
Fraud, and for Default (the "Cross-Motion"). (ECF
No. 30.) Deutsche Bank opposed the Cross-Motion. (ECF No.
35.) On February 5, 2018, Fegely filed a Motion to Take
Judicial Notice. (ECF No. 33.)
March 27, 2018, the Court denied Fegely's Motion to
Dismiss. (March 27, 2018 Mem. Order, ECF No. 39.) Fegely
appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit, (ECF No. 41), and filed an Emergency
Motion for Stay of Judgment Pending Appeal (the "Motion
to Stay"), (ECF No. 43). The Fourth Circuit dismissed
the appeal because the March 27, 2018 Order, (ECF No. 40),
was "neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order." (Fourth Circuit Op.
2, ECF No. 45.)
Court referred all of the above motions to the Honorable
Roderick C. Young, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant
to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No.
44.) On July 11, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report
and Recommendation ("R&R"). (ECF No. 49.) The
Magistrate Judge recommended that:
(1) Fegely's Motion to Stay, (ECF No. 43), be denied as
(2) Fegely's Motion to Take Judicial Notice, (ECF No.
33), be granted;
(3) Fegely's Cross-Motion, (ECF No. 30), be denied; and,
(4) Deutsche Bank's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,
(ECF No. 28), be granted as to Counts I and II and denied as
to Deutsche Bank's request for an award of attorneys'
fees and costs.
of the R&R, each party was advised of the right to file
written objections to the findings and recommendations made
by the Magistrate Judge within fourteen days after being
served with a copy of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); (R&R 11). On July 16, 2018, Fegely filed an
Objection to the R&R. (ECF No. 50.) Deutsche Bank filed
no objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has
objections merely restate the facts and claims in other court
filings and broadly argue, without citation to any legal
authority or evidence, that she "has presented
unrebutted proof to this Court that fraud was in-fact
committed in the foreclosure of the subject property."
(Obj. 3, ECF No. 50.) The Magistrate Judge thoroughly and
thoughtfully considered these claims in the R&R and
correctly deemed them meritless. Fegely also persists in her
inapposite claim that "[p]laintiff(s) do not have the
legal right to collect this or any sum because no sum is owed
by to[sic] the Plaintiff(s)." (Id. at 2.) As
this Court has stated before,  Deutsche Bank is not seeking to
collect any debt. Rather, Deutsche Bank seeks a declaratory
judgment and to quiet title.
Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R
and Fegely's objections. Finding no error ...