Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank National Association (MAG+), No. 2:2015cv00054 - Document 25 (M.D. Ala. 2016)
Court Description: OPINION. An appropriate judgment will be entered. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 5/3/2016. (dmn, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank National Association (MAG+) Doc. 25 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION ALEX SMITH JR., a man, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15cv54-MHT (WO) OPINION Plaintiff filed this lawsuit asserting claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) (15 U.S.C. §§ 1692, 1692a to 1692p) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) (15 U.S.C. §§ 1681, 1681a to 1681x), and related state-law claims, all stemming from defendant’s foreclosure plaintiff’s mother previously dismissed prejudice, but plaintiff’s complaint did motion for on before a property she died. plaintiff’s not for close leave recommendation by This complaint the to owned case, file the by court without and an United left amended States Dockets.Justia.com Magistrate Judge. on the This lawsuit is now before the court recommendation plaintiff’s motion of for the magistrate leave to complaint be denied as futile. file judge an that amended Also before the court are plaintiff’s objections to the recommendation, and plaintiff’s second motion for leave to amend the complaint, filed on the same day as the objections. After an independent and de novo review of the record, the court concludes that plaintiff’s objections should be overruled, the magistrate judge’s recommendation adopted, and the first motion for leave to file an amended complaint denied.* In addition, after review of the second motion for leave to amend the complaint and comparison of the motion and attached proposed amended complaint with the first such motion and proposed amended complaint, the court concludes that the changes On page 8, the recommendation states: “Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint was filed on February 5, 2016, six months after S&P’s last alleged violation.” Recommendation (doc. no. 22). The court reads this as a typo; the sentence should have stated that the “proposed amended complaint was filed … one year and six months after S&P’s last alleged violation.” 2 * made to the proposed amended complaint would not alter the court’s reasoning or conclusion. Accordingly, the court will deny the second motion. An appropriate judgment will be entered. DONE, this the 3rd day of May, 2016. /s/ Myron H. Thompson____ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
