Paselk v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC et al

Filing 47

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE for 28 Report and Recommendation, 16 Motion for Sanctions or Formal Reprimand filed by Carol Paselk. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions or Formal Reprimand [Doc. #16] is DENIED. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 7/2/2014. (kls, )

**NOT FOR PRINTED PUBLICATION**
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
CAROL PASELK
Plaintiff,

V.
BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
ET AL.
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CASE NO. 4:13-CV-262
Judge Clark/Judge Mazzant

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action,
this matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636. On April 9, 2014, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing
proposed findings of fact and recommendations that Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions or Formal
Reprimand [Doc. #16] be denied [Doc. #28]. On April 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed objections [Doc.
#38].
This lawsuit began on May 8, 2013, when Plaintiff pro se filed this action in this court.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants’ counsel Joseph M. Schreiber (“Schreiber”) mischaracterized
this case, as demonstrated in his statement in footnote one of Defendants’ reply concerning
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, which stated that “Bayview has learned that [Myrle] Reynolds
was not Paselk’s boyfriend as stated in Bayview’s Motion to Dismiss, which Bayview assumed
from the context of Plaintiff’s Complaint.”
1

Plaintiff asserts that she corrected Schreiber for this “blatant, unerasable and now publicly
written false assumption that Reynolds was Paselk’s boyfriend, and had ‘left her.’” Plaintiff
requests that the court issue a sanction, or at the very least formally reprimand Schreiber for his
callous disregard for the truth.
The Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff’s request for sanctions lacked merit. The
court agrees; Plaintiff’s objections have no merit. Plaintiff first objects to the Magistrate Judge’s
statement regarding background information relating to Plaintiff’s prior lawsuit, Paselk v. State
of Texas, No. 4:12cv754. The prior case was dismissed with prejudice, with the court finding
that Plaintiff had no plausible claims. Although Plaintiff now wants to object to the Magistrate
Judge’s recitation of these background facts, the court overrules this objection.
With regard to the issue of Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, she asserts that the Magistrate
Judge somehow defends Schreiber. These types of statements have no basis in fact and are
inappropriate in this proceeding. In the future, Plaintiff should restrict her comments to the law
or the facts, or risk being sanctioned by the court.
The Magistrate Judge correctly found that Plaintiff failed to cite any authority for
sanctions. Plaintiff objects, asserting that she cited the Bible. The court agrees that Plaintiff
failed to cite any legal authority to support an award of sanctions. What is clear to the court is
that Schreiber made a mistake, which he corrected. Sanctions are not warranted for this error,
and the Magistrate Judge was correct in recommending the denial of the motion. The court
would advise Plaintiff to watch her tone in documents she files with this court. Disrespect will
not be tolerated.
Having received the report of the United States Magistrate Judge, and considering the

2

objections thereto filed by Plaintiff, this court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions
of the Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s report as the findings and
conclusions of the court.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions or Formal Reprimand
[Doc. #16] is DENIED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 2 day of July, 2014.

___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge

3