Roderick Winslow and Sharnell Henderson v. OCMBC, Inc. a/k/a LoanStream Mortgage

D. Colorado

Roderick Winslow and Sharnell Henderson v. OCMBC, Inc. a/k/a LoanStream Mortgage

DecidedOctober 23, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-03302

StatusUnknown

This text of Roderick Winslow and Sharnell Henderson v. OCMBC, Inc. a/k/a LoanStream Mortgage (Roderick Winslow and Sharnell Henderson v. OCMBC, Inc. a/k/a LoanStream Mortgage) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roderick Winslow and Sharnell Henderson v. OCMBC, Inc. a/k/a LoanStream Mortgage, (D. Colo. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 24-cv-03302-PAB-STV

RODERICK WINSLOW, and SHARNELL HENDERSON,

Plaintiffs,

v.

OCMBC, INC. a/k/a LOANSTREAM MORTGAGE,

Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 59]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 59 at 33 n.16; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on September 16, 2025. No party has objected to the Recommendation. In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. See Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.”1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, the Court has concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 59] is ACCEPTED. It is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Claims for Relief [Docket No. 43] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff’s claims 1-5 and 7-11 of the amended complaint, Docket No. 35, are DISMISSED. DATED October 23, 2025. BY THE COURT:

s/ Philip A. Brimmer PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge

1 This standard of review is something less than a “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law” standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 2

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 24-cv-03302-PAB-STV

RODERICK WINSLOW, and SHARNELL HENDERSON,

Plaintiffs,

v.

OCMBC, INC. a/k/a LOANSTREAM MORTGAGE,

Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 59]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 59 at 33 n.16; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on September 16, 2025. No party has objected to the Recommendation. In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. See Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.”1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, the Court has concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 59] is ACCEPTED. It is further

ORDERED that Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Claims for Relief [Docket No. 43] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff’s claims 1-5 and 7-11 of the amended complaint, Docket No. 35, are DISMISSED. DATED October 23, 2025. BY THE COURT:

s/ Philip A. Brimmer PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge

1 This standard of review is something less than a “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law” standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Roderick Winslow and Sharnell Henderson v. OCMBC, Inc. a/k/a LoanStream Mortgage, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roderick-winslow-and-sharnell-henderson-v-ocmbc-inc-aka-loanstream-cod-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack