Munholland et al v. Wells Fargo Bank National Association as Trustee et al

Filing 48

ORDER. It is ORDERED that the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge # 47 is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Bank Defendants' Motion to Dismiss # 27 is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff's third claim for relief alleging violations of the Federal Debt Collections Practices Act is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In the absence of federal question jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining state law claims and remands this case to the District Court for Douglas County, Colorado. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 03/18/13. (alvsl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Honorable R. Brooke Jackson
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03393-RBJ-KMT
TRISHA J. MUNHOLLAND and
BELLA HOMES, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for the certificateholders of
Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Inc. Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding Trust 2007-AR5
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-AR5,
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA.,
EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, and
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS.
Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the February 25, 2013 Order and Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya [docket #47]. As relevant here, the Recommendation
addresses the Bank Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [#27]. The Recommendation is incorporated
herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. However, no
objection to Magistrate Judge Tafoya’s Recommendation was filed by either party. “In the
absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate . . . [judge’s] report under
any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991)
(citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that “[i]t does not appear that Congress
1

intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de
novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings”).
The Court has reviewed the relevant pleadings concerning the Recommendation. Based
on this review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s analyses and recommendations
are correct, and that “there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee’s note. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation of The United States
Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate
Judge [#47] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Bank Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [#27] is
GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff’s third claim for relief alleging violations of the Federal Debt
Collections Practices Act is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. In the absence of federal question jurisdiction, the Court declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s remaining state law claims and remands this
case to the District Court for Douglas County, Colorado.
DATED this 18th day of March, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

___________________________________
R. Brooke Jackson
United States District Judge

2