So it Declaration and you may Recommendation questions next around three movements: (1) Plaintiff’s Affidavit away from Points meant for Defendant’s Ginnie Mae Default Wisdom [#17], which the Courtroom construes given that Plaintiff’s Action getting Default View against Offender Ginnie Mae; (2) Plaintiff’s Affidavit out of Things to get Defendant’s Hughes, Watters & Amplifier Askanase Law practice Default Wisdom [#18], that Courtroom construes since the Plaintiff’s Action for Default Judgment up against Accused Hughes, Watters & Askanase; and you may (3) Accused Hughes Watters & Askanase, LLP’s Rule a dozen(b)(6) Actions to help you Discount which have Bias [#21]. Following Region Legal accompanied the undersigned’s earlier in the day report and you may recommendation, the fresh Judge re also-called this additional hints example on the undersigned to possess spirits of the many left pretrial matters [#28]. The fresh new undersigned keeps power to go into this testimonial pursuant so you’re able to twenty eight You.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Towards the grounds set forth lower than, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Action to own Default Judgment facing Accused Ginnie Mae [#17] end up being Refused; Plaintiff’s Motion getting Default Judgment against Accused Hughes, Watters & Askanase [#18] end up being Disregarded Since the MOOT; and you may Defendant Hughes Watters Askanase, LLP’s Signal 12(b)(6) Actions in order to Write off having Bias [#21] feel Granted. The undersigned after that advises that the Region Court write off without prejudice Plaintiff’s remaining says against Ginnie Mae sua sponte.
Plaintiff Sammy Lee Woods, Jr., continuing pro se, registered his Issue towards [#3] against Defendants Flagstar Lender, Lakeview Mortgage Upkeep, LLC, Loancare, LLC, Ginnie Mae, and you may Hughes, Watters & Askanase. Plaintiff’s states question assets located at 7727 Windview Way, San Antonio, Colorado 78244 and you can an allegedly illegal decide to try within foreclosures. (Compl. [#3] on dos, 33.) Plaintiff’s Problem, even if lengthy, includes few informative accusations and even lacks a reason away from the brand new functions to distinguish the brand new so-called misconduct of individuals Defendants. Although not, construing Plaintiff’s Criticism and other pleadings liberally, it appears that he’s alleging he renegotiated his mortgage with a new promissory mention toward , and that note effortlessly paid back the loan in a manner that one test in the property foreclosure was illegal. (Id. at the 2.) The causes of action asserted when you look at the Plaintiff’s Ailment are also not sure, however, Plaintiff is apparently asserting claims of unlawful foreclosure, violation regarding bargain, swindle, and you will denial away from owed procedure, in addition to abuses of your own Texas Providers and you can Trade Code §step three.603, the case When you look at the Lending Work (“TILA”), the real Estate Settlement Measures Operate (“RESPA”), the fresh Racketeer Swayed and you may Corrupt Groups Operate (“RICO”), additionally the Uniform Commercial Password (“UCC”). (Id. on step 3-28.) Connected to Plaintiff’s Criticism are certain data one to allegedly help his says. (Id. in the 33-60.)
Regarding declaration, the latest undersigned figured Plaintiff’s allegation that he came across the quantity owed with the their mortgage by the entry an alternate notice in order to Flagstar Financial failed to bring about any facially possible claim, once the mention attached to Plaintiff’s Issue looked like unilaterally written and you may executed from the Plaintiff during the try to customize the loan’s terms and conditions. In the long run, the newest undersigned found that Plaintiff’s says under RILA, Control Z, and RESPA have been banned by governing statute of restrictions and Plaintiff’s UCC and you will Tx Business and you may Business Code states were not successful since the a point of rules since these regulations do not control liens for the houses.