Alexander Harvin v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Alexander Harvin. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-15416

Date Filed: 08/25/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-15416
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cv-04477-MHC

ALEXANDER HARVIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(August 25, 2017)
Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-15416

Date Filed: 08/25/2017

Page: 2 of 3

On May 29, 2003, Alexander Harvin bought a residence in Conyers,
Georgia, with the proceeds of a mortgage loan he obtained from SouthTrust
Mortgage Corporation. On October 11, 2013, JP Morgan Chase Bank NA
(“Chase”) became the assignee of the mortgage. On July 3, 2014, Harvin sued
Nationwide Title Clearing, Chase, and others in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia, claiming that the assignment to Chase was invalid
and seeking damages on the theory that Chase “violated the [Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e)] by attempting to foreclose on his home without
holding a valid security interest in it.” Harvin v. Nationwide Title Clearing, 632
Fed. App’x 599 (11th Cir. 2016). The District Court dismissed his lawsuit, and
Harvin appealed.
While the appeal was pending,1 Harvin returned to the District Court on
December 29, 2015, and filed this action, seeking to enforce the rescission of the
2003 mortgage loan he had allegedly perfected pursuant to the Truth in Lending
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a), and Regulation Z promulgated thereunder, when Chase
failed to respond to the notice of rescission he delivered to Chase on February 2,
2015.

1

We affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of Harvin’s case on January 28, 2016. Harvin v.
Nationwide Title Clearing, 632 Fed. App’x 599 (11th Cir. 2016).
2

Case: 16-15416

Date Filed: 08/25/2017

Page: 3 of 3

Chase responded by moving the District Court to dismiss Harvin’s
complaint.2 The Court referred the motion to a Magistrate Judge, and she
recommended its dismissal. The District Court followed her recommendation and
entered judgment for Chase. Harvin appeals, contending that the Court erred in
considering documents attached to his complaint (which were referenced in the
complaint’s allegations), and abused its discretion in staying discovery pending the
resolution of Chase’s motion to dismiss and in denying his motion for recusal,
which was based in part on the Court’s dismissal of his complaint in Harvin v.
Nationwide Title Clearing. Harvin’s contentions are patently meritless. The
District Court’s judgment is accordingly
AFFIRMED.

2

We refer to Harvin’s amended complaint.
3