Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jeanpierre

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Plaintiff, v. Case No. 5:25-CV-00553-JKP LAWRENCE JEANPIERRE, Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Richard B. Farrer’s Report and Rec- ommendation, (ECF No. 7), recommending the Court deny Defendant Lawrence Jeanpierre’s (“Jeanpierre”) Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees and Costs, (ECF No. 1), and grant Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s (“Wells Fargo”) Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 4). Jeanpierre, proceeding pro se, did not object to the Report and Recommendation.

Upon consideration, the Court ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the Report and Recommenda- tion. As recommended, the Court DENIES Jeanpierre’s Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees and Costs, (ECF No. 1), and GRANTS Wells Fargo’s Motion to Re- mand, (ECF No. 4).

STANDARD OF REVIEW Any party who seeks review of all or a portion of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Rec- ommendation must serve and file specific written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). If a party does not timely object to all or a portion of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the District Court will review the unobjected-to proposed findings and recommendations to determine whether they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Johnson v. Sw. Research Inst., 210 F. Supp.3d 863, 864 (W.D. Tex. 2016) (citing U.S. v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.)(per curiam), cert. de- nied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989).1 DISCUSSION Consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), the Court re- viewed the subject Report and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. The Court finds no such error. Jeanpierre did not pay the filing fee as ordered by Judge Farrer, did not seek leave to cure the significant deficiencies present in his Proposed Notice of Removal, and did not object to Judge Farrer’s Report and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. As recommended, the Court DENIES Jeanpierre’s Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees and Costs, (ECF No. 1), and GRANTS Wells Fargo’s Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 4).

It is ORDERED this case be REMANDED to the 285th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas. The referral to the Magistrate Judge is WITHDRAWN. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to affect the remand according to the usual procedure and close this case.

1 While Federal Rule 72(b) does not facially require any review in the absence of a specific objection, the advisory committee notes following its adoption in 1983 state: “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Further, failure to object shall also bar appellate review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation that were ultimately accepted by the district court, unless the party demonstrates plain error. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150–53 (1985); United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221.

To facilitate timely receipt of this Order, the Clerk of Court is further DIRECTED to email a copy of this Order to Martin at: 1) law.jea@ yahoo.com The Clerk of Court is further DIRECTED to mail, via certified mail with return receipt requested, a copy of this Order to: 1) Lawrence Jeanpierre, 13618 Livestock Ct., San Antonio, Texas 78252 It is so ORDERED.

SIGNED this 2nd day of October, 2025.

nein LUDA U 7 D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE