Michelle Baker v. CitiMortgage, Inc.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 26, 2019
Docket18-2157
StatusUnpublished

This text of Michelle Baker v. CitiMortgage, Inc. (Michelle Baker v. CitiMortgage, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Michelle Baker v. CitiMortgage, Inc., (8th Cir. 2019).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 18-2157 ___________________________

Michelle A. Baker

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

CitiMortgage, Inc.; Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. ("MERS")

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________

Submitted: February 13, 2019 Filed:February 26, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

In this foreclosure-related action, Michelle Baker appeals after the district 1 court dismissed her complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). After

1 The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable careful de novo review, we conclude that the district court did not err in determining that Baker failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Kelly v. City of Omaha, 813 F.3d 1070, 1075 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review). We further conclude that there is no merit to Baker’s arguments on appeal that she was improperly denied a hearing, an opportunity to engage in discovery, and a jury trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) (“[T]he court may provide for submitting and determining motions on briefs, without oral hearings.”); Toben v. Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC, 751 F.3d 888, 895 (8th Cir. 2014) (district courts have wide discretion in handling discovery matters); Duncan v. Dep’t of Labor, 313 F.3d 445, 447 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (because dismissal was proper, there was no issue for trial). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

Katherine M. Menendez, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-

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

Related

Donald W. Duncan v. Department of Labor
313 F.3d 445 (Eighth Circuit, 2002)
Patricia Toben v. Bridgestone Retail Operations
751 F.3d 888 (Eighth Circuit, 2014)
Arlena Kelly v. City of Omaha
813 F.3d 1070 (Eighth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Michelle Baker v. CitiMortgage, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michelle-baker-v-citimortgage-inc-ca8-2019.