Sealey v. Stidham et al (JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG+)

Filing 35

OPINION. An appropriate judgment will be entered. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/27/2015. (dmn, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
MELVIN L. SEALEY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
TAMARA A. STIDHAM (Senior
Vice Pres. of Branch
Banking and Trust
Company), et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:14cv1036-MHT
(WO)

OPINION
Plaintiff
asserting

Melvin

a

foreclosure

L.

variety
of

his

Sealey

of

filed

claims

property.

this

lawsuit

related

This

to

lawsuit

the

is

now

before the court on the recommendation of the United
States

Magistrate

dismiss

Sealey’s

motions

filed

by

Judge
case

that

be

Sealey

defendants’

granted
be

and

denied.

objections to the recommendation.

motion

that

to

various

There

are

no

However, Sealey has

filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed.
R.

Civ.

P.

41(a)(1)(A)(i)

as

to

four

of

the

five

defendants:

Tamara A. Stidham, Edward A. R. Miller,

Richard A. Wright, and Kelly S. King.
dismissal

is

permissible

under

the

This voluntary
applicable

rule

because these defendants have not yet filed an answer
or

motion

for

recommendation

summary

will

be

judgment.

withdrawn

as

Thus,
to

the

these

four

defendants.
After an independent and de novo review

of the

record, the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s
recommendation should be adopted as to the remaining
defendant,
exception.

Branch

Banking

and

Trust,

with

a

minor

The recommendation mistakenly asserts that

Branch Banking and Trust was not named as a party and
was not served.

See Recommendation (doc. no. 30), at

18; but see Complaint (doc. no. 1-2), at 3 (listing
Branch Banking and Trust as a defendant).

While it is

unclear whether Branch Banking and Trust was properly
served, it has appeared through counsel in this matter,
joined in filing the notice of removal and motion to
dismiss, and seemingly acknowledged having been served

2

in the notice of removal.

In any case, this minor

misstatement makes no difference in the result.

In

addition, the recommended denial of Sealey’s motion to
amend the complaint is proper because Sealey has not
shown how amendment would allow him to state a viable
claim (for example, by noting ‘how’ in an objection to
the recommendation) and because it does not appear that
an amendment would save his claims.
An appropriate judgment will be entered.
DONE, this the 27th day of August, 2015.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson____
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3