Hill v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP

Filing 20

Order Accepting 17 Findings and Recommendations on Case re: 6 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 5/21/2014) (cea)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
LAWRENCE M. HILL,
Plaintiff,
v.
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P.,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-3044-L

ORDER
Before the court is Defendant Bank of America’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 6),
filed December 13, 2013. On May 6, 2014, Magistrate Judge David L. Horan entered the Findings,
Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), recommending
that Defendant’s motion be granted and this action be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. No
objections were filed to the Report.
Plaintiff filed no response in opposition to Defendant’s summary judgment motion. This
failure, of course, does not permit a court to enter a “default” summary judgment. Eversley v.
MBank Dallas, 843 F.2d 172, 174 (5th Cir. 1988). When no response is filed, such failure does
permit the court to accept as undisputed the evidence set forth in support of a movant’s motion for
summary judgment. Id. Normally, “[a] summary judgment nonmovant who does not respond to the
motion is relegated to his unsworn pleadings, which do not constitute summary judgment evidence.”
Bookman v. Schubzda, 945 F. Supp. 999, 1002 (N.D. Tex. 1996) (citing Solo Serve Corp. v.
Westowne Assocs., 929 F.2d 160, 165 (5th Cir. 1991)). Allegations in a verified complaint, however,
may serve as competent summary judgment evidence. Stauffer v. Gearhart, 741 F.3d 574, 581 (5th
Cir. 2014); Hart v. Hairston, 343 F.3d 762, 765 (5th Cir. 2003).
Order – Page 1

In this case, Plaintiff’s pleadings in his Original Petition are verified. He may therefore rely
on the facts alleged in his pleadings on summary judgment. Id. Although the Report includes a
summary judgment standard applicable to unsworn pleadings, the court concludes that the result
reached by the magistrate judge is correct because Plaintiff’s allegations do not raise a genuine
dispute of material fact with respect to any of his claims, which are all essentially based on a claim
to quiet title in his name. Defendant is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s
claims based on quieting title.
Accordingly, after reviewing the motion, Defendant’s evidence, the record in this case, the
Report, and applicable law, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate
judge are correct except to the extent as above noted. The court therefore accepts, as modified, the
findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge, grants Defendant Bank of America’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 6), and dismisses this action with prejudice.
It is so ordered this 21st day of May, 2014.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Order – Page 2