Craig Nichols, et al. v. American Equity Funding, Inc., et al.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION

CRAIG NICHOLS, ET AL. § § § VS. § CIVIL NO. 4:26-cv-705 -P § AMERICAN EQUITY FUNDING, § INC., ET AL. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AS TO PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

On April 9, 2026, pro se Plaintiffs Craig Nichols and Mary Nichols (“Plaintiffs”) filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“Motion”). In that Motion, Plaintiffs request this Court grant a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) enjoining the court-ordered foreclosure of 2520 Deer Trail, Granbury, Texas. (See Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) at 2.) At this time, no Defendant has been served; as such, this is an ex parte application for a TRO. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). Having carefully reviewed the motion, the Court finds, concludes, and recommends that the motion be DENIED because Plaintiff failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(1) as required for the Court to issue a TRO without written or oral notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B) (requiring the requesting party to “certif[y] in writing any efforts made to give notice” to the enjoined party). Moreover, even assuming Plaintiffs had complied with Rule 65(b)(1) to obtain a TRO, injunctive relief is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act and the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine because, as stated above, the foreclosure process is pursuant to a Texas state court order.1 See Knoles v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 513 F. App'x 414, 416 (5th Cir. 2013) (stating that a federal court may

1 The Court notes that a final judgment has also been entered in the underlying state-court action. (See Plaintiffs Complaint at 15.) not grant injunctive relief that would enjoin a party “from enforcing a valid [ ] judgment of a Texas court”); see also Union Planters Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Salih, 369 F.3d 457, 462 (5th Cir. 2004)(“[T]he Rooker-Feldman doctrine holds that inferior federal courts do not have the power to modify or reverse state court judgments”). Consequently, the Court also finds, concludes, and

recommends that the motion be DENIED because relief is barred by these doctrines. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to this action has the right to serve and file specific written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after the party has been served with a copy of this document. The United States District Judge need only make a de novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file, by the date stated above, a specific written objection to a proposed factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). ORDER Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is hereby ORDERED that each party is granted until June 23, 2026, to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if objections are filed and the opposing party chooses to file a response, the response shall be filed within seven (7) days of the filing date of the objections. SIGNED June 9, 2026. CO) ? rhe. Sof STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE