Tyler v. PHH Mortgage Service

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Texas
DecidedFebruary 27, 2024
Docket3:23-cv-00981
StatusUnknown

This text of Tyler v. PHH Mortgage Service (Tyler v. PHH Mortgage Service) 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
Tyler v. PHH Mortgage Service, (N.D. Tex. 2024).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION LOU TYLER, § § Plaintiff, § § V. § No. 3:23-cv-981-K § PHH MORTGAGE SERVICE, ET AL., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge entered findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case on February 8, 2024. See Dkt. No. 53. While no objections were filed, Plaintiff did notice an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of an order entered on February 8. See Dkt. No. 54. The Court first observes that, because it appears that Plaintiff is attempting to appeal the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, which itself is not an order, the interlocutory appeal is not proper, so the Court retains jurisdiction over this case. See Nascimento v. Dummer, 508 F.3d 905, 910 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[W]hen a litigant makes an improper interlocutory appeal, such action will not throw a monkey wrench into the machinery of our justice system. Instead, when an improper appeal is taken, the district court retains its jurisdiction to act on the case.”)); cf. United States v. Green, 882 F.2d 999, 1001 (5th Cir. 1989) (“Notice of appeal from a non-appealable order ... does not render void for lack of jurisdiction acts of the trial court taken in the interval between filing of the notice and dismissal of the appeal.” (citing United States v. Hitchmon, 602 F.2d 689, 692 (5th Cir. 1979))). And, to the extent that Plaintiff's notice should be construed as objections, the Court reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding no error, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. SO ORDERED. Signed February 27", 2024.

ED KINKEADE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Tyler v. PHH Mortgage Service, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tyler-v-phh-mortgage-service-txnd-2024.