Brumfiel v. U.S. Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 57

FINAL JUDGMENT by Clerk re: 56 Order Adopting in Part and Rejecting in Part the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. By Clerk on 12/12/2014. (alowe)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge William J. Martínez Civil Action No. 14-cv-02453-WJM LISA KAY BRUMFIEL, Plaintiff, v. U.S. BANK, N.A. trustee, Merrill Lynch / First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust trustee, Mortgage Loan Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2007 FF1, SELECTED PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC., BANK OF AMERICA N.A. Defendants. FINAL JUDGMENT Pursuant to and in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), all previous Orders entered in this case, and the Order Adopting in Part and Rejecting in Part October 28, 2014 Recommendation of Magistrate Judge, And Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, entered by the Honorable William J. Martínez on December 11, 2014, IT IS ORDERED that 1. The October 28, 2014 Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 39) is ADOPTED IN PART as to the Colorado River doctrine and REJECTED IN PART as to the Younger abstention doctrine; 2. Plaintiff’s Objections to the Recommendation (ECF No. 43) are OVERRULED IN PART as to the Colorado River doctrine and SUSTAINED IN PART as to the Younger abstention doctrine; 3. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED; and 4. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction. 5. Final Judgment is entered against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendants. 6. Defendants shall have their costs upon the filing of a Bill of Costs with the Clerk of Court within fourteen days’ entry of Final Judgment. Dated at Denver, Colorado this 12th day of December 2014. BY THE COURT: JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK By: Deborah Hansen Deborah Hansen, Deputy Clerk

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?