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