IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

ANNA MCHENRY, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND 

SOCIETY, FSB, D/B/A 

CHRISTIANA TRUST AS TRUSTEE 

FOR PNPMS TRUST III and 

STATEBRIDGE COMPANY, LLC, 

 Defendants. 

 No. 4:24-CV-01543 

 (Chief Judge Brann) 

(Bankruptcy Judge Conway) 

ORDER 

DECEMBER 23, 2024 

Anna McHenry filed an adversarial proceeding against Defendants; in her 

amended complaint, she raises seven claims, including one for a determination of 

post-petition mortgage fees, expenses, and charges pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Bankruptcy Procedure 3002.1.1

 That claim arose out of an underlying Chapter 13 

bankruptcy proceeding wherein a plan was approved that called for a servicer of 

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB (“WSFS”) to receive payment in the amount 

of $27,026.98 related to a mortgage loan provided to McHenry by WSFS that was 

secured by McHenry’s residence.2

 McHenry has now filed a motion to withdraw the 

1

 McHenry v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, No. 4:24-AP-00036-MJC, Doc. 12 

(Bankr. M.D. Pa., Aug. 15, 2024). 

2

 Doc. 4 at 1-2. 

Case 4:24-cv-01543-MWB Document 6 Filed 12/23/24 Page 1 of 3
2 

reference to the Bankruptcy Court, arguing that withdrawal is mandatory or, at a 

minimum, permissive.3

In July 2023, Bankruptcy Judge Mark. J. Conway issued a Report and 

Recommendation recommending that this Court grant the motion to withdraw, but 

defer withdrawal of the bankruptcy court reference until the matter is ready for trial.4

Judge Conway reached this recommendation after determining that, while the 

standard for permissive withdrawal is met here, it would further the interests of 

judicial economy to leave pretrial matters in the hands of a court that is intimately 

familiar with the facts and parties underlying the complaint.5

 McHenry filed timely 

objections to the Report and Recommendation.6

 

“If a party objects timely to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, 

the district court must ‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report 

or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.’”7

Regardless of whether timely objections are made, district courts may accept, reject, 

or modify—in whole or in part—the magistrate judge’s findings or 

recommendations.8

 After reviewing the record, the Court finds no error in Judge 

3

 Doc. 1. 

4

 Doc. 4. 

5

 Id.

6

 Doc. 5. 

7

 Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017) 

(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). 

8

 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31. 

Case 4:24-cv-01543-MWB Document 6 Filed 12/23/24 Page 2 of 3
3 

Conway’s recommendation that withdrawal be granted, but deferred until the matter 

is ready for trial.9

 Consequently, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Bankruptcy Judge Mark J. Conway’s Report and Recommendation 

(Doc. 4) is ADOPTED; 

2. McHenry’s motion to withdraw the reference to bankruptcy court (Doc. 

1) is GRANTED, but withdrawal is DEFERRED until such time as 

the underlying proceeding is ready for trial; and 

3. The parties shall notify the Court that the underlying proceeding is 

either ready for trial or has otherwise been resolved within 30 days of 

the date that such event occurs. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann 

Chief United States District Judge 

9

 McHenry objects to Bankruptcy Judge Conway’s determination that mandatory withdrawal 

has not been met here. Doc. 5 at 1-4. However, the Court agrees with Judge Conway that 

“mandatory withdrawal is required only when [underlying] issues require the interpretation, as 

opposed to mere application, of the non-title 11 statute, or when the court must undertake 

analysis of significant open and unresolved issues regarding the non-title 11 law,” neither of 

which appears to be the case here. Matter of Vicars Ins. Agency, Inc., 96 F.3d 949, 954 (7th 

Cir. 1996). And while McHenry further argues that permissive withdrawal should be 

effectuated immediately, Doc. 5 at 4-7, this Court concurs with Judge Conway that judicial 

efficiency would be promoted by leaving this matter with the Bankruptcy Court until such time 

as the case is ready to proceed to trial.

Case 4:24-cv-01543-MWB Document 6 Filed 12/23/24 Page 3 of 3