Bailey v. Bank of America Corporation et al

Filing 136

ORDER ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, overruling plaintiff's objections and granting motions 43 , 48 , 67 , 70 , 72 , 75 , 81 , 82 for 121 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's motion to amend 131 , is denied. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on May 11, 2015. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
JAMES BRADLEY BAILEY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; )
ONEWEST BANK; WELLS FARGO
)
BANK; SUNTRUST BANK; DEUTSCHE )
BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, )
as Trustee for Soundview Home Loan
)
Trust 2005-4; KORN LAW FIRM, PA;
)
BROCK AND SCOTT, PLLC; ROGERS, )
TOWNSEND & THOMAS, PC; DOES 1 )
THROUGH 25, inclusive; DEUTSCHE
)
BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, )
as Trustee for GSAA Home Equity Trust
)
2006, And All persons Unknown, Claiming )
any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, Estate, )
Lien, or Interest in the Property Described )
in the Complaint Adverse to Plaintiff’s Title,)
or Any Cloud on Plaintiff Title Thereto,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 3:14-cv-1849-TLW

ORDER
Plaintiff James Bradley Bailey, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action on May 8, 2014,
alleging that Defendants violated the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12
U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq., and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq.
(Doc. #1). He further alleges various state law claims against Defendants. Id. Defendants
Rogers, Townsend & Thomas PC; OneWest Bank; Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (as
Trustee for GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006); Bank of America Corporation; Suntrust Bank;
Brock and Scott PLLC; Wells Fargo Bank; and Korn Law Firm PA each filed motions to dismiss

1

the action. (Doc. #43, 48, 67, 70, 72, 75, 81, 82). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the
motions to dismiss on January 14, 2015. (Doc. #112). Defendants Brock and Scott PLLC; Korn
Law Firm PA; OneWest Bank; Rogers, Townsend & Thomas PC; and Suntrust Bank filed
replies thereto. (Doc. #113, 114, 115, 117, 118).
This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the
Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, to whom this case was
assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.). In the
Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court (1) dismiss Defendants Does 1-25 and
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (as Trustee for Soundview Home Loan Trust 2005-4)
from this action without prejudice because they were never served with process; (2) grant the
remaining Defendants’ motions to dismiss as to Plaintiff’s federal claims; and (3) decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. (Doc. #121). Plaintiff filed
objections to the Report on March 23, 2015. (Doc. #123). Along with his objections, Plaintiff
filed a motion to amend his Complaint, seeking permission to assert a new claim under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq., and to reassert his FCRA
claim. (Doc. #131). These matters are now ripe for disposition.
In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any
party may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound by the
recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the
final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which
an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de
novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate
judge as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which no
objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court’s
review of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed,
in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of
the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.

2

Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992)
(citations omitted).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Plaintiff’s objections thereto in
accordance with this standard, and it concludes that the Magistrate Judge accurately summarizes
the case and the applicable law. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation is ACCEPTED (Doc. #121), and Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED
(Doc. #123). For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, Defendants Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company (as Trustee for Soundview Home Loan Trust 2005-4) and Does 1-25
are hereby DISMISSED from this action without prejudice, and the remaining Defendants’
motions to dismiss are hereby GRANTED (Doc. #43, 48, 67, 70, 73, 75, 81, 82). The Court has
also reviewed the pending motion to amend and concludes that amendment would be futile. See
Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426-27 (4th Cir. 2006) (noting that under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(a), “leave to amend a pleading should be denied only when the amendment would
be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or
the amendment would have been futile”). Plaintiff’s motion to amend is therefore DENIED.
(Doc. #131).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
May 11, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

3