`
`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