IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

 

JUBILEE GROUP HOMES, INC.,

Plaintiff, 

versus

NINA DENCHUKWU ULASI,

 Defendant,

and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Intervenor.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-213

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON 

INTERVENOR’S MOTION TO APPROVE THE SALE OF PROPERTY (Doc. #24)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules of Court for the Assignment of Duties to 

United States Magistrate Judges, the district court referred this case to the undersigned magistrate

judge to conduct all pretrial proceedings, to enter findings of fact and recommend disposition on 

case-dispositive matters, and to determine non-dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 

E.D. TEX. LOC. R. CV-72. Pending before the court is Intervenor’s Motion to Approve Sale of 

Emily Property to H&E Group LLC for $140,000. (Doc. #24.) After an evidentiary hearing and 

a review of the record, the undersigned recommends granting the motion and entering an order 

approving the sale.

I. Discussion

On December 14, 2023, the court entered a final judgment that provided for the sale of the 

real property at issue. (Doc. #20.) Pursuant to the final judgment and 28 U.S.C. §2001(a), the 

Case 1:23-cv-00213-MAC-CLS Document 32 Filed 06/26/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

249
2

court appointed Dayna Simmons as Receiver to take possession of and arrange for the sale of the 

property by public auction. (Docs. #22, #23); 28 U.S.C. §2001(a).1 Intervenor filed the instant

motion to approve the sale of the property on May 23, 2024. (Doc. #24.) On June 7, 2024, Plaintiff 

filed objections to the sale claiming Ms. Simmons received a competing offer of $150,000 for the

property, but the objections did not provide any specific details about this other offer. (Doc. #27.) 

Intervenor responded to those objections, explaining why Mauro Loya and Loyalty REI LLC 

(“LRL”) did not, in fact, provide a valid offer on the property at issue. (Doc. #28.) On June 26, 

2024, the undersigned held a hearing on the issue.

After review of all relevant evidence, the undersigned finds that $140,000 offered by H&E 

Group LLC is fair given the condition of the property and based on sworn testimony from the 

Receiver regarding the value of the property. In fact, the Receiver listed the property at $100,000 

but procured a best and final offer of $140,000 from H&E Group LLC. The undersigned, therefore, 

recommends approving the sale of the property to H&E Group LLC for $140,000. The 

undersigned also finds that Plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that LRL had 

provided Ms. Simmons a proper offer. Specifically, there is no evidence that LRL provided proper

proof of funding required for an offer. 

II. Conclusion and Recommendation

The court should GRANT Intervenor’s motion to approve the sale of the property to H&E 

Group LLC for $140,000 (doc. #24) and enter an order approving the sale (doc. #24-2).

1 As the agreed final judgment provides that the sale of the property at issue will take place by a public auction, the 

court need not apply the procedure used to confirm private sales under 28 U.S.C. §2001(b). (Doc. #20 at 3); see 

generally United States v. Scherer, 532 F. Supp. 3d 485, 489 (S.D. Ohio 2021) (explaining the procedural differences 

when a court approves a sale conducted by public auction versus a private sale).

Case 1:23-cv-00213-MAC-CLS Document 32 Filed 06/26/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:

250
3

III. Objections

Within fourteen (14) days after service of the magistrate judge’s report, any party must 

serve and file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate 

judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding 

or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the 

place in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed determination is 

found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

magistrate judge is not specific. Without leave of court, objections are limited to eight (8) pages. 

E.D. TEX. LOC. R. CV-72(c).

Failure to file specific, written objections will bar the party from appealing the unobjectedto factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted by the district 

court, except upon grounds of plain error, provided that the party has been served with notice that 

such consequences will result from a failure to object. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 

79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). 

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 26th day of June, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00213-MAC-CLS Document 32 Filed 06/26/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

251