PHH Mortgage Corporation v. Atkins

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
PHH MORTGAGE
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BERNICE ATKINS,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO
4:24-cv-03111
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff PHH Mortgage Corporation initiated this
mortgage dispute in August 2024. Dkt 1. It brings claims
for declaratory judgment, to enforce statutory probate lien,
and for nonjudicial foreclosure. Id at ¶¶26–33. Defendant
Bernice Atkins was served that month but failed to
respond. Dkt 7. The Clerk entered default against
Defendant in October 2024. Dkt 11. Plaintiff then moved
for default judgment in January 2025. Dkt 14.
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Dena Hanovice Palermo. Dkt 8. Judge Palermo
issued a Report and Recommendation in which she
recommended that the motion for default judgment be
granted. Dkt 15. That was previously adopted, with
judgment entered against Defendant. Dkt 16 (order
adopting); Dkt 17 (final judgment).
Pending is a motion by Plaintiff for attorney fees.
Dkt 18. Judge Palermo issued a further Report and
Recommendation recommending that the motion be
granted. Dkt 19.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
November 26, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-03111 Document 20 Filed on 11/26/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of
a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(C); see
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no
clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v
PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
No party filed objections. No clear error appears upon
review and consideration of the record, the applicable law,
and the Report and Recommendation.
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this
Court. Dkt 19.
Defendant is ORDERED to pay Plaintiff reasonable
attorney and paralegal fees in the amount of $3,410 and
costs in the amount of $405, for a total of $3,815.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Hon. Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
November 26, 2025
Case 4:24-cv-03111 Document 20 Filed on 11/26/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 2