Cigler v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 2:2015cv00017 - Document 22 (N.D. Ind. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 21 Motion for clarification. Signed by Judge William C Lee on 9/23/15. cc: Cigler (mc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cigler v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC Doc. 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA JOSEPH A. CIGLER, Plaintiff, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL NO. 2:15cv17 OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the court on a “Motion for Clarification of Opinion and Order”, filed by the Plaintiff, Joseph A. Cigler (“Cigler”), proceeding pro se, on September 17, 2015. The defendant has declined to file a response. For the following reasons, the motion will be denied. Cigler filed this case in state court on December 1, 2014. The defendant then removed to this court on January 12, 2015. On January 20, 2015, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which prompted Cigler to file a motion to remand the case back to state court. On March 18, 2015, this court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and denied Cigler’s motion to remand. On April 3, 2015, Cigler filed a motion to reopen the case, which was denied on May 27, 2015. Undeterred, on July 13, 2015, Cigler filed another motion to reopen case and remand to state court. This motion was denied on August 13, 2015. Cigler has now filed a motion for clarification, in which he essentially re-states his belief that he has a valid claim against the defendant and should be able to proceed with his case. Nevertheless, for the reasons stated in this court’s previous orders, Cigler has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Thus, the grant of the motion to dismiss was proper and Dockets.Justia.com Cigler’s “motion for clarification” will be denied. If Cigler continues to disagree with this court’s rulings, it is suggested that Cigler seek redress with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Conclusion On the basis of the foregoing, Cigler’s “motion for clarification” is hereby DENIED. Entered: September 23, 2015. s/ William C. Lee William C. Lee, Judge United States District Court 2
]]>
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.
