Adams v. EMC Mortgage Corporation

Filing 55

ORDER OVERRULING 46 52 53 OBJECTIONS TO AND ADOPTING 45 RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; This case and all concomitant claims for relief are DISMISSED; The Motion To Dismiss Third Amended Complaint by Defendants Acquara Loa n Services, Llc and William Berrong and Supporting Brief 37 is GRANTED; Chase Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint And Jury Demand Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6) 38 is GRANTED; Judgment SHALL ENTER in favor of the defendants against the plaintiff on all claims for relief and causes of action asserted in this action; Defendants are AWARDED their costs to be taxed by the clerk of the court. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 3/18/13. (kfinn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 12-cv-00344-REB-KLM
VASHONE L. ADAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, a Foreign Corporation,
CAROL YOUNG, individually and as agent,
JAMES DIMON, individually and as agent,
ACQURA LOAN SERVICING, a Foreign Corporation,
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., and
WILLIAM BERONG, individually and as agent,
Defendants.

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO AND ADOPTING
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
The matters before me are (1) Motion To Dismiss Third Amended Complaint
by Defendants Acquara Loan Services, Llc and William Berrong and Supporting
Brief [#37]1 filed July 2, 2012; (2) Chase Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Third Amended Complaint And Jury Demand Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)
and (6) [#38] filed July 2, 2012; and (3) Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge [#45] filed August 21, 2012. The plaintiff filed objections [#46] to the
recommendation. The defendants filed responses [#47 & #48] to the objections. The
plaintiff filed corresponding replies [#52 & #53]. I overrule the objections and approve
1

“[#37]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

and adopt the recommendation.
The plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Thus, I have construed his pleadings more
liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings and papers
drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200,
167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007);
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)).
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the
recommendation to which objections have been filed. I have considered carefully the
recommendation, objections, and applicable caselaw. The recommendation is detailed,
well-reasoned, and circumstantiated factually and legally . Contrastingly, plaintiff’s
objections are imponderous and without merit.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the objections stated by plaintiff in documents [#46, 52 & 53] are
OVERRULED;
2. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#45] filed
August 21, 2012, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court;
3. That this case and all concomitant claims for relief are DISMISSED for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman;
4. That alternatively, the Motion To Dismiss Third Amended Complaint by
Defendants Acquara Loan Services, Llc and William Berrong and Supporting
Brief [#37] filed July 2, 2012, is GRANTED;
5. That alternatively, Chase Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third
Amended Complaint And Jury Demand Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6)
2

[#38] filed July 2, 2012, is GRANTED;
6. That judgment SHALL ENTER in favor of the defendants against the plaintiff
on all claims for relief and causes of action asserted in this action; and
7. That defendants are AWARDED their costs to be taxed by the clerk of the
court in the time and manner prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and
D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1.
Dated March 18, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3