DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 
FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
DONALD J. MOOK, DANA W. MOOK, 
Defendants. 
) 
) 
) 
 
) 
 
) 
Civil No. 2016-95 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
 
APPEARANCES: 
 
A.J. Stone, III 
Bolt Nagi PC 
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 
 
For Flagstar Bank, FSB. 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
GÓMEZ, J. 
 
Before the Court is the motion of Flagstar Bank, FSB, 
(“Flagstar”) that seeks attorneys’ fees and costs (the “fee 
petition”) from Donald J. Mook and Dana W. Mook (collectively 
the “Mooks”). 
Flagstar’s fee petition seeks an award of attorneys’ fees 
in the amount of $4,550 and compensable costs in the amount of 
$885. 
The Court referred Flagstar’s fee petition to the 
Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation. On September 
Case: 3:16-cv-00095-RAM-RM   Document #: 43   Filed: 09/20/18   Page 1 of 3
Flagstar Bank, PSC v. Donald J. Mook, et al. 
Civ. No. 2016-95 
Order 
Page 2 
 
5, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued her Report and 
Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge determined that the 
requested attorneys’ fees should be reduced by $450 to exclude 
excessive charges. In addition, the Magistrate Judge determined 
that the requested costs should be reduced by $200 to exclude 
costs not allowable under 5 V.I.C. § 541(a). 
The parties filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s 
Report and Recommendation. 
Litigants may make “specific written objections” to a 
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation “[w]ithin 14 days 
after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition.” 
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 
(“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party 
may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings 
and recommendations as provided by rules of court.”). 
When no objection to a magistrate’s report and 
recommendation is made the district court reviews the report and 
recommendation for plain error. See Henderson v. Carlson, 812 
F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (“While . . . [28 U.S.C. § 
636(b)(1)] may not require, in the absence of objections, the 
district court to review the magistrate’s report before 
accepting it, we believe that the better practice is for the 
district judge to afford some level of review to dispositive 
Case: 3:16-cv-00095-RAM-RM   Document #: 43   Filed: 09/20/18   Page 2 of 3
Flagstar Bank, PSC v. Donald J. Mook, et al. 
Civ. No. 2016-95 
Order 
Page 3 
 
legal issues raised by the report.”); see also Tice v. Wilson, 
425 F. Supp. 2d 676, 680 (W.D. Pa. 2006) aff'd, 276 Fed. App'x 
125 (3d Cir. 2008)(explaining that, by failing to object to a 
portion of a report and recommendation, the litigant “waived its 
right to have this Court conduct a de novo review,” and that in 
those circumstances, “the scope of [the court’s] review is far 
more limited and is conducted under the far more deferential 
standard of ‘plain error’ ”). 
Having reviewed the record and the Report and 
Recommendation, the Court finds no error. 
 
The premises considered, it is hereby  
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation docketed at ECF 
Number 42 is ADOPTED; it is further  
ORDERED that the motion for attorney’s fees and costs 
docketed at ECF Number 32 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; 
it is further 
ORDERED that the Mooks shall be liable to Flagstar for 
attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,100; and it is further  
ORDERED that the Mooks shall be liable to Flagstar for 
costs in the amount of $685 in costs.  
 
 
 
  
 
 
S\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Curtis V. Gómez 
 
District Judge 
Case: 3:16-cv-00095-RAM-RM   Document #: 43   Filed: 09/20/18   Page 3 of 3