BYRON v. HSBC BANK USA, NA et al, No. 2:2015cv00360 - Document 57 (D. Me. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 53 Report and Recommendations; denying 56 Motion for Oral Argument/Hearing; denying 50 Motion for a Determination that Defendants' Counterclaims are subject to MRSA Sec. 6321-A; and mooting 27 Motion for Mediation. By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (MSH)

Download PDF
BYRON v. HSBC BANK USA, NA et al Doc. 57 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of Maine MATTHEW BYRON, Plaintiff v. HSBC BANK USA, NA, and SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 2:15-cv-360-GZS ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on July 7, 2016, his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 53). Plaintiff filed his Objection to the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 54) on July 18, 2016. Defendants filed their Reply to Plaintiff’s Objection to the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 55) on July 29, 2016. I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision; and 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. 1. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request for Oral Argument (ECF No. 56) is DENIED. 2. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby AFFIRMED. 2. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Determination that Defendants’ Counterclaims are Subject to M.R.S.A. §6321-A (ECF No. 50) is DENIED. Dockets.Justia.com 3. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Mediation (ECF No. 27) is MOOT. /s/George Z. Singal_____________ U.S. District Judge Dated this 3rd day of August, 2016.

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.