Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank National Association (MAG+)

Filing 25

OPINION. An appropriate judgment will be entered. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 5/3/2016. (dmn, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
ALEX SMITH JR., a man,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:15cv54-MHT
(WO)

OPINION
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit asserting claims under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) (15
U.S.C. §§ 1692, 1692a to 1692p) and the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (“FCRA”) (15 U.S.C. §§ 1681, 1681a to
1681x), and related state-law claims, all stemming from
defendant’s

foreclosure

plaintiff’s

mother

previously

dismissed

prejudice,

but

plaintiff’s
complaint

did

motion
for

on

before

a

property

she

died.

plaintiff’s
not
for

close
leave

recommendation

by

This

complaint

the
to

owned

case,
file

the

by

court
without

and

an

United

left

amended
States

Magistrate Judge.
on

the

This lawsuit is now before the court

recommendation

plaintiff’s

motion

of

for

the

magistrate

leave

to

complaint be denied as futile.

file

judge
an

that

amended

Also before the court

are plaintiff’s objections to the recommendation, and
plaintiff’s

second

motion

for

leave

to

amend

the

complaint, filed on the same day as the objections.
After an independent and de novo review of the record,
the court concludes that plaintiff’s objections should
be

overruled,

the

magistrate

judge’s

recommendation

adopted, and the first motion for leave to file an
amended complaint denied.*

In addition, after review of

the second motion for leave to amend the complaint and
comparison of the motion and attached proposed amended
complaint

with

the

first

such

motion

and

proposed

amended complaint, the court concludes that the changes

On page 8, the recommendation states: “Plaintiff’s
proposed amended complaint was filed on February 5,
2016, six months after S&P’s last alleged violation.”
Recommendation (doc. no. 22). The court reads this as
a typo; the sentence should have stated that the
“proposed amended complaint was filed … one year and
six months after S&P’s last alleged violation.”
2
*

made to the proposed amended complaint would not alter
the court’s reasoning or conclusion.

Accordingly, the

court will deny the second motion.
An appropriate judgment will be entered.
DONE, this the 3rd day of May, 2016.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson____
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3