Duncan v. CitiMortgage Inc et al

Filing 26

ORDER: After carefully considering Defendants' motion, the documents attached to Defendants' motion that are referred to in Plaintiff's Complaint and central to his claims, Plaintiff's response, Defendants' reply, the pleadin gs, Report, Plaintiff's objections, Defendants' response to the objections, and the applicable law, the court determines that the 21 findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Acc ordingly, the court overrules Plaintiff's objections, grants Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 13 ), and dismisses this action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 3/28/2014) (ctf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ANTHONY T. DUNCAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC. AND
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:12-CV-2652-L

ORDER
Before the court is Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint (Doc. 13), filed April 22, 2013. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint in this mortgage foreclosure case was referred to Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney, who
entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
(“Report”) on December 17, 2013, recommending that Defendants’ motion be granted and Plaintiff’s
claims be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on December 30, 2013,
to which Defendants responded on January 21, 2014.
After carefully considering Defendants’ motion, the documents attached to Defendants’
motion that are referred to in Plaintiff’s Complaint and central to his claims, Plaintiff’s response,
Defendants’ reply, the pleadings, Report, Plaintiff’s objections, Defendants’ response to the
objections, and the applicable law, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the
magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court
overrules Plaintiff’s objections, grants Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Order –Page 1

Amended Complaint (Doc. 13), and dismisses this action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
It is so ordered this 28th day of March, 2014.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Order –Page 2