throbber
Case 4:14-cv-00840-ALM-CAN Document 38 Filed 09/03/15 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 170
`
`United States District Court
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`SHERMAN DIVISION
`
`FEYSAL AYATI-GHAFFARI
`
`v.
`
`TITLE SOURCE, INC. “TSI” ESCROW
`





`
`CASE NO. 4:14-CV-840
`(Judge Mazzant/Judge Nowak)
`
`MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND
`RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action,
`
`this matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. § 636. On August 10, 2015, the report of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. #34) was entered
`
`containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that Defendant’s FRCP 12(b)(6)
`
`Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Dkt. #5) and Defendant Title Source, Inc.’s
`
`Motion for Ruling on Defendant’s FRCP 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
`
`(Dkt. #22) be granted. The Magistrate Judge recommended Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed with
`
`prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
`
`(Dkt. #34).
`
`The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that this litigation relates in some form or
`
`fashion to a loan that did not close for a property located at 4508 Lone Grove Lane, Plano, Texas
`
`75093 (the “Property”). Plaintiff’s Original Petition (Dkt. #3) and any purported amendments
`
`are otherwise not clear. Plaintiff seemingly alleges claims for “breach of duty-contract,” quantum
`
`meruit, promissory estoppel, and slander. Id. Plaintiff also vaguely makes reference to fraud;
`
`civil conspiracy; negligence; a violation of Florida Statute section 627.792; defalcation,
`
`conversion, and misappropriation; vicarious liability under the theory of respondeat superior; and
`
`

`
`Case 4:14-cv-00840-ALM-CAN Document 38 Filed 09/03/15 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 171
`
`reformation. Id. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed with
`
`prejudice for failure to state a claim.
`
`On August 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Plaintiffs [sic] Response to Wrong
`
`Report 8/10/15 Recommendation Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
`
`Join a Requested Party” (Dkt. #37). Much like his prior pleadings, Plaintiff’s filing is unclear.
`
`The Court can discern only two objections. First, Plaintiff contends that the “absent party,
`
`JPMorgan Chase Bank, is required for resolution of defendant’s Intermingling-Funds of
`
`$156,974.00 is MISSING during this 2/19/13 Closing but cannot be joined; therefore, the Court
`
`should dismiss defendant’s all claims. And reward the plaintiff for all he pray for $5,000,000.00
`
`in pain and suffering for this illegal foreclosure” (Dkt. #37 at 1 (emphasis in original)). Plaintiff
`
`argues that complete relief is not available among the existing parties, and appears to argue that
`
`without JPMorgan Chase Bank, this dispute cannot be fully resolved (See Dkt. #37 at 2-3).
`
`Second, Plaintiff also argues that Defendant is required to produce copies of three checks
`
`somehow involved in the alleged February 9, 2013 closing of the loan (Dkt. #37 at 4).
`
`
`
`A party who files timely written objections to a magistrate judge's report and
`
`recommendation is entitled to a de novo determination of those findings or recommendations to
`
`which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2)-(3).
`
`“Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings [to which they object].
`
`Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Nettles
`
`v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by
`
`Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); Chase Bank USA,
`
`N.A. v. McLain, No. 1:12-CV-353, 2013 WL 713404, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2012). In
`
`Plaintiff's filing, he does not identify any specific issue of law or fact, among those set forth in
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 4:14-cv-00840-ALM-CAN Document 38 Filed 09/03/15 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 172
`
`the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, with which he disagrees, nor does he address
`
`the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. Therefore, Plaintiff's objection fails
`
`to invoke his right to a de novo review of the report and recommendation. Nonetheless, the Court
`
`has undertaken a de novo review of the report and recommendation, and the Court concludes that
`
`the Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions are correct. See Douglass, 79 F.3d at 1429
`
`(noting that a district court may alternatively find the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions
`
`were correct even though a party did not properly object to the report and recommendation). The
`
`Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s Original Petition did not satisfy the requirements of
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, and recommended that each of Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed
`
`with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The Court agrees. Plaintiff’s pleadings and other
`
`filings are unclear, not specific, and are insufficient to state a claim. Accordingly, the Court
`
`finds Plaintiff’s objections are overruled.
`
`Having received the report of the United States Magistrate Judge, having considered each
`
`of Plaintiff’s timely filed objections (Dkt. #37), and having conducted a de novo review, the
`
`Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and
`
`adopts the Magistrate Judge’s report (Dkt. #34) as the findings and conclusions of the Court.
`
`It is, therefore, ORDERED that Defendant’s FRCP 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for
`
`Failure to State a Claim (Dkt. #5) and Defendant Title Source, Inc.’s Motion for Ruling on
`
`Defendant’s FRCP 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Dkt. #22) are
`
`GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim
`
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 4:14-cv-00840-ALM-CAN Document 38 Filed 09/03/15 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 173
`
`All relief not previously granted is DENIED.
`
`The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this civil action
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`

`
`4

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket