Langlois v. US Bank NA

N.D. Texas

Langlois v. US Bank NA

DecidedFebruary 24, 2022

Docket3:20-cv-02867

StatusUnknown

This text of Langlois v. US Bank NA (Langlois v. US Bank NA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Langlois v. US Bank NA, (N.D. Tex. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

United States District Court NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION FILOMENIA LANGLOIS § v. § § US BANK NA, as Trustee for CREDIT 8 CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-CV-2867-S-BT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON MORTGAGE § SECURITIES CORP HOME EQUITY § ASSET TRUST 2006-6, HOME EQUITY § PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, § SERIES 2006-6 § ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. See ECF No. 18. Plaintiff filed objections. See ECF No. 21. The District Court reviewed de novo those portions of the findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding no error, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Even if Plaintiff's objections to the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are sufficient to cure Plaintiff's abandonment of her claims as a result of not responding to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 11], the Magistrate Judge addressed the merits of Plaintiff's claims. Debowale v. U.S. Inc., 62 F.3d 395 (5th Cir. 1995) (upholding grant of summary judgment where plaintiff submitted his opposition after the magistrate judge had issued a recommendation). This Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff's claims are conclusively disproved by the evidence. To □□□

extent that Plaintiff seeks an extension of time in which to file a response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, that request is DENIED as untimely. N.D. TEX. L. CIv.R. 7.1(e). Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 11] is GRANTED. Plaintiffs claims will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE by separate judgment. SO ORDERED. SIGNED February 24, 2022. J LW hi

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States District Court NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION FILOMENIA LANGLOIS § v. § § US BANK NA, as Trustee for CREDIT 8 CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-CV-2867-S-BT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON MORTGAGE § SECURITIES CORP HOME EQUITY § ASSET TRUST 2006-6, HOME EQUITY § PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, § SERIES 2006-6 § ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. See ECF No. 18. Plaintiff filed objections. See ECF No. 21. The District Court reviewed de novo those portions of the findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding no error, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Even if Plaintiff's objections to the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are sufficient to cure Plaintiff's abandonment of her claims as a result of not responding to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 11], the Magistrate Judge addressed the merits of Plaintiff's claims. Debowale v. U.S. Inc., 62 F.3d 395 (5th Cir. 1995) (upholding grant of summary judgment where plaintiff submitted his opposition after the magistrate judge had issued a recommendation). This Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff's claims are conclusively disproved by the evidence. To □□□

extent that Plaintiff seeks an extension of time in which to file a response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, that request is DENIED as untimely. N.D. TEX. L. CIv.R. 7.1(e). Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 11] is GRANTED. Plaintiffs claims will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE by separate judgment. SO ORDERED. SIGNED February 24, 2022. J LW hi

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Langlois v. US Bank NA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/langlois-v-us-bank-na-txnd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack