Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Vallery v. Select Portfolio Servicing — adopted recommendation to grant default-judgment motion

Reported / Citable

Case
Detroit Vallery, Individually and in His Capacity as Independent Executor of the Estate of Laura Edwards, Deceased, and Tekeshia Vallery v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. and U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association, as Trustee
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division
Judge
Michael J. Truncale
Date Decided
August 11, 2026
Docket No.
1:25-cv-00402-MJT
Topics
Default Judgment; Magistrate Judge Review; Report and Recommendation

Background

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. and U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association, acting as defendants, counter-plaintiffs, and third-party plaintiffs, moved for default judgment against third-party defendant Frank Neal Edwards Jr.

District Judge Michael J. Truncale referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn. On July 21, 2026, Judge Hawthorn issued a report and recommendation advising that the motion be granted. No party objected within the permitted time.

The Court’s Holding

The district court adopted Judge Hawthorn’s report and recommendation concerning the motion for default judgment against Edwards. The court found the magistrate judge’s factual findings and legal conclusions correct after reviewing the report, record, pleadings, and available evidence.

The two-page order adopts the recommendation that the third-party plaintiffs’ motion be granted. It does not separately describe the underlying claims, the basis for Edwards’s default, or the relief requested.

Key Takeaways

  • The court adopted the recommendation to grant the third-party plaintiffs’ default-judgment motion against Frank Neal Edwards Jr.
  • No objections were filed to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation before the deadline passed.
  • The order resolves only the referred default-judgment matter and supplies no details about the underlying claims or requested relief.

Why It Matters

The order illustrates the district-court process for acting on a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), particularly when no party objects. Its precedential or substantive reach is limited because the order provides no analysis of the underlying dispute or default-judgment requirements.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top