United States of America v. Estate of Marcella Cook; Estate of John W. Cook;...

“FATES DISTR KD oe ates CO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT S NO WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | FEB 11 2026 Mey. ose a . □□ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 24-CV-848 (JLS) (MJR) ESTATE OF MARCELLA COOK; ESTATE OF JOHN W. COOK; UNKNOWN HEIRS OF MARCELLA COOK, Dec’d (DOD 12/27/2016); UNKNOWN HEIRS OF JOHN W.

COOK, Dec’d (DOD 11/23/2007), Defendants DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff commenced this action, which seeks foreclosure of a property in Southport, New York, against Defendants in September 2024. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff moved for default judgment in February 2025. Dkt. 10. No party responded to the default judgment motion.

This Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J.

Roemer for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 686(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 11.

On September 16, 2025, Judge Roemer issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that this Court deny the default judgment motion because the record does not show that Plaintiff served the summons and complaint or the default judgment on the Unknown Heirs Defendants. See Dkt. 18. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has passed.

A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(8). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which a party objects.! See 28 U.S.C. § 6386(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).

This Court carefully reviewed the R&R and the relevant record. Based on that review, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Roemer’s recommendation.

For the reasons stated above, and in the R&R, this Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion for default judgment (Dkt. 10), without prejudice to Plaintiffs ability to correct the deficiencies outlined in the R&R. The case is referred back to Judge Roemer for further proceedings, consistent with the referral order at Dkt. 11.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2026 / Buffalo, New York a7 ( 70 L. SINATRA, JR. ee U TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiff moved for leave to file an amended complaint on January 5, 2026. Dkt. 16.

The Court leaves that motion for Judge Roemer to address at the appropriate time.