Chay Jr v. Montiel et al

Filing 94

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONOF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE re: 47 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM , Wells Fargo Bank terminated. (Signed by Judge Drew B Tipton) Parties notified. (jen7)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION
EAZ CHAY JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOSE A. MONTIEL, EDGAR
HERNANDEZ, CITY OF PHARR
POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF
PHARR, HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS,
UTB/TSC, and WELLS FARGO BANK,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

March 12, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

Civil Action No. 7:23-CV-00206

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the February 19, 2025, Memorandum and
Recommendation (“M&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Nadia S. Medrano. (Dkt. No.
90). Judge Medrano made findings and conclusions and recommended that Defendant
Wells Fargo Bank’s Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. No. 47), be granted, (Dkt. No. 90 at 1, 15).
Judge Medrano further recommended that this Court not grant Plaintiff leave to amend
his claims against Wells Fargo Bank. (Dkt. No. 90 at 14–15). Consequently, Judge
Medrano recommended that Wells Fargo be dismissed from this action. (Id. at 15).
The Parties were provided proper notice and the opportunity to object to the M&R.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). On March 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed over 100
“objections” to Judge Medrano’s M&R. (Dkt. No. 92). Plaintiff’s objections are difficult
to follow. (See Dkt. No. 90 at 3) (noting the same with respect to Plaintiff’s previous
filings).

Liberally construed, Plaintiff appears to generally object to the M&R by

reiterating his allegations against Wells Fargo Bank and others. (See generally Dkt. No.
92). Specific to Wells Fargo, Plaintiff appears to argue that Wells Fargo knowingly
participated in a conspiracy involving Cameron County and UTB/TSC by opening fake
bank accounts in Plaintiff’s name in May 2005 and processing transactions he could not
have authorized since he was incarcerated at the time. (See id. at 2, 5–9, 13, 19–21). He
argues Wells Fargo was part of a coordinated scheme involving local judicial and
educational institutions aimed at protecting drug traffickers, manipulating judicial
records, and obstructing government oversight.

(See id.).

Plaintiff contends that

suspicious stock transactions by Wells Fargo executives around the same time further
demonstrate the bank’s knowledge and intentional participation in the alleged
conspiracy. (See id.).
Plaintiff specifically objects to the M&R’s finding that his claims against Wells
Fargo fail to meet pleading standards, (see id. at 3), contending that he provided enough
evidence to demonstrate that Wells Fargo participated knowingly in fraudulent schemes
related to his illegal arrest and imprisonment, including transactions he could not have
executed due to his incarceration, (see id. at 1–2, 18). He contends that he was improperly
denied an opportunity to present this evidence at the hearing. (See id. at 5–6, 12, 32).
Plaintiff also objects to the M&R’s holding that the statutes of limitations bar his
claims against Wells Fargo, arguing that equitable tolling should apply because he was
unaware of his injuries and Wells Fargo’s alleged fraudulent actions until he discovered
them in recent years. (See id. at 5, 7, 9–10, 14, 17).

2

Finally, Plaintiff objects to Judge Medrano’s dismissal recommendation, arguing
that dismissal would harm him and the public and unfairly prevent him from presenting
additional evidence showing Wells Fargo’s connection to the conspiracy. (See id. at 4, 11,
13, 15–16, 32).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court is required to “make a de
novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge’s] report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection [has been] made.” After
conducting this de novo review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The Court has carefully considered de novo those portions of the M&R to which
objection was made and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendations for plain error. Finding no error, the Court accepts the M&R and
adopts it as the opinion of the Court.
It is therefore ordered that: Judge Medrano’s M&R, (Dkt. No. 90), is ACCEPTED
and ADOPTED in its entirety as the holding of the Court; and
(1)

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank’s Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. No. 47), is
GRANTED; and

(2)

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank is DISMISSED from this civil action.

It is SO ORDERED.

3

Signed on March 12, 2025.
___________________________________
DREW B. TIPTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4