Waldo et al v. Ocwen Loan Servicing
ORDER-ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Case Closed.; Denied as moot 33 Motion for TRO; granting 6 Motion to Dismiss Case Closed.; granting 21 Motion ; adopting Report and Recommendations re 31 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 1/13/12. (jmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
CHARLES C. WALDO, ETHANNE S.
Case No. 2:10-CV-0928
Judge Clark Waddoups
OCWEN LOAN SERVICES,
Before the court is the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (Dkt. No. 31)
regarding Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 6). The court reviews the report and
recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Plaintiff argues that “Plaintiffs have
been unsuccessful in their previous Court opportunities due to the fact that, while the Courts
believe there are facts to the Plaintiffs’ Case, the Courts contend the cases should be heard
elsewhere.” (Dkt. No. 10, 2). Plaintiffs also argue that “Ocwen’s attorneys let slip information
near or at the end of a case that had been held back and would have helped Plaintiffs.” Id.
Without supporting citations to the record by which the court can evaluate these claims, they are
The court notes that Congress has codified the preclusion of prior state proceedings in
subsequent federal actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (stating that “[s]uch Acts, records and judicial
proceedings [of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession] or copies thereof, so
authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and
its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory
or Possession from which they are taken.)”. Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation to dismiss the case due to claim preclusion is upheld in its entirety.
Defendant’s motion to dismiss is therefore GRANTED.1 The clerk’s office is hereby instructed
to place Plaintiffs on the court’s restricted-filer list as set forth in the magistrate judge’s report
and recommendation. (Dkt. No. 21, 31.) With the case dismissed, Plaintiff’s motion for a
temporary restraining order is DENIED as moot. (Dkt. No. 33.)
DATED this 13th day of January, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
United States District Judge
Because the case is dismissed on grounds of preclusion, an analysis of the substantive arguments is moot.
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?