MILLER v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES LLC, No. 2:2019cv00016 - Document 36 (D. Me. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE granting 34 Motion for Order; accepting Report and Recommendations re: 35 Report and Recommendations. By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (aks)

Download PDF
MILLER v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES LLC Doc. 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE JAMES F. MILLER, Individually and on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:19-cv-00016-JDL ) ) ) ) ) ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE James F. Miller, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, brings this action against Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1692−1692p. The parties now jointly request that the Court preliminarily certify the putative class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) for settlement purposes, grant preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, authorize notice of the proposed settlement to the class members, and schedule a hearing on the proposed settlement (ECF No. 34). United States Magistrate Judge John C. Nivison filed a Recommended Decision on the parties’ joint motion with the Court on June 3, 2020 (ECF No. 35), pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2020) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The time within which to file objections has expired, and no objections have been filed. Dockets.Justia.com 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 have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision. I concur with the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in the Recommended Decision and determine that no further proceeding is necessary. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 35) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ACCEPTED and the parties’ joint motion (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED in all respects. It is further ORDERED that Miller’s counsel of record is appointed as class counsel. The Clerk is directed to schedule a fairness hearing on the proposed settlement 90 days after the date of this Order, or as soon thereafter as is practicable. SO ORDERED. Dated this 6th day of July, 2020. /s/ Jon D. Levy CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

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.