Kadiyala et al v. Pupke et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO.: 17-cv-80732-GAYLES/MATTHEWMAN
RAVI KADIYALA, individually, and
as the assignee of CREDIT UNION
MORTGAGE UTILITY BANC, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MARK JOHN PUPKE, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Vacate Plaintiffs’
Judgment Under Rule 60(b)(6) (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 356]. The action was referred to Chief
Magistrate Judge William Matthewman, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling. [ECF
No. 374]. On January 22, 2026, Judge Matthewman issued his report recommending that the
Motion be denied (the “Report”). [ECF No. 381]. Defendants have timely objected to the Report.
[ECF No. 383].
A 	district 	court 	may 	accept, 	reject, 	or 	modify 	a 	magistrate 	judge’s 	report 	and
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which
objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings
that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific
objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint
Case 9:17-cv-80732-DPG Document 390 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/01/2026 Page 1 of 2

2
Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc.,
208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
In his Report, Judge Matthewman finds that the Motion is untimely and, even if it were
timely, Defendants fail to establish fraud on the Court or extraordinary circumstances that would
warrant vacating the judgment. The Court has reviewed the Report and Defendants’ objections
and has conducted a de novo review of the record. The Court agrees with Judge Matthewman’s
findings and recommendation that the Motion be denied.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1) 	Judge Matthewman’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 381], is ADOPTED
in full;
(2) 	Defendants’ Motion to Vacate Plaintiffs’ Judgment Under Rule 60(b)(6), [ECF No.
356], is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 1st day of April, 2026.
________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 9:17-cv-80732-DPG Document 390 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/01/2026 Page 2 of 2