US BANK TRUST NA AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST v. KING, No. 1:2019cv00119 - Document 46 (D. Me. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE re: 31 Report and Recommendations. By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (akr)

Download PDF
US BANK TRUST NA AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST v. KING Doc. 46 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST, Plaintiff, v. GREG A. KING Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:19-cv-00119-JDL ) ) ) ) ) ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE United States Magistrate Judge John H. Rich III filed his Recommended Decision and Order (ECF No. 31) with the Court on September 17, 2019, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2019) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Order regarded Plaintiff U.S. Bank Trust N.A. as Trustee for LSF9 Master’s Motion for Entry of Default (ECF No. 27), and the Recommended Decision regarded Defendant King’s Counterclaim (ECF No. 18). 1 The time within which to file objections has expired, and no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge provided notice that a party’s failure to object would waive the right to de novo review and appeal. I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision, together with the entire record, and I have made a de novo determination King, representing himself, filed a document with a heading of “Bill of Complaint in Equity; Presentment to Void Proceedings and Jurisdiction.” ECF No. 13. Magistrate Judge Rich construed this filing as a motion to dismiss and a counterclaim. ECF No. 16. 1 Dockets.Justia.com of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision. I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision and determine that no further proceeding is necessary. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 31) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ACCEPTED, such that the Defendant’s Counterclaim is DENIED without prejudice. The Defendant is hereby DIRECTED to file an answer to the complaint within 14 days of the Court’s order on the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, which is being published concurrently with this order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A). The Defendant may attach his counterclaim to that pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 13. The Clerk is directed to provide the Defendant with a list of legal aid service providers. SO ORDERED. Dated this 15th day of January, 2020. /s/ Jon D. Levy CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.