Roehling v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
ORDER Affirming and Adopting Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 30 is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 11 is DENIED AS MOOT. ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall REMAND this case to the District Court, Jefferson County, Colorado by Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 08/22/12.(jjhsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00192-WYD-BNB
JOHN J. ROEHLING,
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. [“Wells Fargo”] and Supporting Brief filed February 21, 2012. In
response, Plaintiff John J. Roehling [“Plaintiff”] moved to remand the case to state court.
The Motion to Dismiss was referred to Magistrate Judge Boland, who issued a
Recommendation on August 3, 2012. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by
Magistrate Judge Boland recommends that Wells Fargo’s Motion to Dismiss be
denied as moot, and that Plaintiff’s request to remand the case be granted. (See
Recommendation at 2.) He noted that Wells Fargo has not shown that 18 U.S.C. § 1334
confers jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim. (Id. at 4.) Further, Magistrate Judge Boland found that
regardless of whether diversity jurisdiction exists, the court does not have subject matter
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim because it is barred from being heard in federal court by the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine. (Id. at 4-5.)
Magistrate Judge Boland advised the parties that specific written objections were due
within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation.
(Recommendation at 5 n. 2.) Despite this advisement, no objections were filed. No objections
having been filed, I am vested with discretion to review the Recommendation “under any
standard [I] deem appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see
also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that "[i]t does not appear that Congress
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"). Nonetheless, though
not required to do so, I review the Recommendation to "satisfy [my]self that there is no clear
error on the face of the record."1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes.
Having reviewed the Recommendation, I am satisfied that there is no clear error on the
face of the record. I agree with Magistrate Judge Boland’s analysis, and find that this case must
be remanded to state court for the reasons stated in the Recommendation. It is therefore
ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed August 3,
2012 (ECF No. 30) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is
ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. filed
February 21, 2012 (ECF No. 11) is DENIED AS MOOT. Finally, it is
Note, this standard of review is something less than a "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard
of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall REMAND this case to the District Court,
Jefferson County, Colorado.
Dated: August 22, 2012
BY THE COURT:
s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
Wiley Y. Daniel
Chief United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?