Riley et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al
Filing
36
ORDER denying 29 Motion to Amend; denying 29 Motion for New Trial.(Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(rhawkins, 4)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
GEORGE O. RILEY and TRENA
LEEANN RILEY,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiffs,
VS.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
CRESTMARK MORTGAGE CO., LTD.,
and BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER
TURNER and ENGEL, LLP,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-13 0608
ORDER
Pending before the Court in the above referenced action
is now pro se Plaintiffs George O. Riley and Trena Leeann Riley's
motion for new trial [and] motion to amend dismissal pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, and,
Rule of Civil Procedure 60
alternatively,
(instrument #34)
Federal
and United States
Magistrate Judge Frances Stacy's memorandum and recommendation
(#34) that the motion be denied.
Plaintiffs
have
memorandum and order.
L.L.P.
objects
that
not
filed
any
objections
to
the
Defendant Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel,
Plainti
s
are
currently
represented
by
council and their pro se motion should be stricken because it
violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and Local Rule 11.1
As for Rule 59, Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate a manifest error of
law or fact
or present
improperly rehash
Crestmark Mortgage
their
newly discovered evidence,
previous
Company,
Ltd.
arguments.
objects
also
but merely
#30.
Defendant
to
Plaintiffs'
improper rehashing of previous arguments under Rule 59.
1
Plaintiffs argue that they can and have dismissed
their attorney.
#33.
-1
Findings of the Magistrate Judge in a memorandum and
recommendation to which no specific objections are made require
the Court only to decide whether the memorandum and recommendation
is clea
Wilson,
y erroneous or contrary to law.
864 F.2d 1219, 1221
(5 th Cir. 1989).
"may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
ting
Id. ,
u.s.
v.
The district court
part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge."
28 U.S.C.
§
636 (b) (1) (C).
Plaintiffs
counsel
withdraw, but has not done so.
is
required to move
for
leave to
Regardless, the Magistrate Judge
the Rileys' claims were fully considered on the merits
notes
in her memorandum and recommendations of November 21, 2012, that
this
Court
overruled
obj ections
made
to
that
memorandum
and
recommendation by Plaintiffs' counsel, and that this Court adopted
the memorandum and recommendation as
s own and denied the three
motions to dismiss that it addressed.
Now in their motion for new
t
1,
that
aims pro se, complain
aintiffs seek to relitigate
ir attorney was incompetent, and assert new and untimely
objections to the November 21, 2013 memorandum and recommendation.
This Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly
summari
here.
the applicable law and properly applied it to the facts
Accordingly, the Court
ADOPTS the memorandum and recommendation as its own and
ORDERS that Plaintiffs' motion
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this:B
new trial is DENIED.
~ day
of June, 2014.
~w
MELINDA HARMON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-2
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?