Williams v. Caliber Home Loans

Filing 102

ORDER ACCEPTING 101 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: The plaintiff's 95 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to FRCvP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), construed as a motion to dismiss his case, is GRANTED, and his clai ms will be dismissed WITH PREJUDICE by separate judgment. Defendant's 54 Rule 12(b)(6) Motion for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and Brief in Support, and Defendant's 70 Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) are DENIED AS MOOT. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey on 12/16/2016) (twd)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MICHAEL WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, vs. CALIBER HOME LOANS, Defendant. § § § Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-2346-N-BH § § § Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. The plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), filed July 18, 2016 (doc. 95), construed as a motion to dismiss his case, is GRANTED, and his claims will be dismissed WITH PREJUDICE by separate judgment. Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and Brief in Support, filed May 6, 2016 (doc. 54), and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), filed June 2, 2016 (doc. 70), are DENIED AS MOOT. SIGNED this 16th day of December, 2016. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?