While doing so, the undersigned learned that Plaintiff’s allegation concerning your recording out-of one or two lien releases did not give rise to one possible allege as the the fresh launches, whether or not linked to the home involved, alarmed another type of financing not related to that particular suit

That it Report and you may Recommendation concerns the following around three movements: (1) Plaintiff’s Affidavit out of Factors meant for Defendant’s Ginnie Mae Standard View [#17], that Courtroom construes just like the Plaintiff’s Motion getting Standard Judgment up against Defendant Ginnie Mae; (2) Plaintiff’s Affidavit from Factors in support of Defendant’s Hughes, Watters & Amp Askanase Law firm Default View [#18], which the Legal construes once the Plaintiff’s Activity to own Standard Wisdom up against Defendant Hughes, Watters & Askanase; and (3) Offender Hughes Watters & Askanase, LLP’s Signal several(b)(6) Actions so you’re able to Write off which have Prejudice [#21]. Pursuing the Area Legal observed brand new undersigned’s early in the day declaration and recommendation, new Courtroom re-called this situation for the undersigned getting mood of all of the leftover pretrial issues [#28]. New undersigned has actually expert to go into it testimonial pursuant so you’re able to twenty-eight U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Into the factors established below, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Activity to have Standard View against Accused Ginnie Mae [#17] be Declined; Plaintiff’s Action getting Standard Wisdom up against Offender Hughes, Watters & Askanase [#18] be Dismissed Once the MOOT; and you will Accused Hughes Watters Askanase, LLP’s Laws 12(b)(6) Motion so you’re able to Dismiss which have Bias [#21] feel Provided. The fresh undersigned subsequent suggests that Region Court discount rather than prejudice Plaintiff’s remaining states up against Ginnie Mae sua sponte.

Plaintiff Sammy Lee Woods, Jr., continuing specialist se, registered their Problem towards the [#3] up against Defendants Flagstar Financial, Lakeview Mortgage Repair, LLC, Loancare, LLC, Ginnie Mae, and Hughes, Watters & Askanase. Plaintiff’s says question assets found at 7727 Windview Way, San Antonio, Tx 78244 and a supposedly illegal sample from the property foreclosure. (Compl. [#3] from the dos, 33.) Plaintiff’s Complaint, even when very long, includes hardly any factual accusations and even lacks a reason out-of the newest parties to identify new alleged misconduct of individuals Defendants. (Id. at dos.) The causes of action asserted www.servicecashadvance.com/title-loans-ky/paintsville/ when you look at the Plaintiff’s Grievance are undecided, however, Plaintiff is apparently saying states out-of wrongful property foreclosure, violation regarding contract, fraud, and denial regarding owed processes, and additionally violations of Texas Providers and you will Trade Code §step three.603, the case Into the Financing Work (“TILA”), the real Property Settlement Measures Work (“RESPA”), the latest Racketeer Swayed and you will Corrupt Communities Act (“RICO”), together with Uniform Industrial Password (“UCC”). (Id. on step 3-twenty eight.) Linked to Plaintiff’s Issue are certain data files that allegedly service their claims. (Id. at the 33-60.)

But not, construing Plaintiff’s Complaint and other pleadings liberally, it would appear that he’s alleging which he renegotiated his mortgage with a new promissory mention on , which mention effectively paid down the mortgage such that people attempt in the property foreclosure try illegal

Defendants Flagstar Lender, Lakeview Financing Repair, and you can Loancare gone to live in dismiss Plaintiff’s says pursuant to Government Signal from Civil Processes a dozen(b)(6), while the undersigned granted a study and you may testimonial indicating the fresh motion become provided towards the [#19]. On the declaration, the new undersigned figured Plaintiff’s allegation which he found the quantity due into his mortgage of the submitting an alternate notice so you can Flagstar Lender did not bring about people facially probable claim, due to the fact notice connected with Plaintiff’s Ailment appeared as if unilaterally drawn up and conducted of the Plaintiff inside try to modify the loan’s words. In the long run, the brand new undersigned learned that Plaintiff’s claims below RILA, Controls Z, and you may RESPA were banned of the ruling statute regarding limits and you may Plaintiff’s UCC and Tx Providers and you may Business Password claims hit a brick wall just like the a point of rules mainly because guidelines do not regulate liens on the houses.