Howard v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. f/k/a Norwest Mortgage, Inc. et al, No. 3:2011cv00116 - Document 63 (S.D. Ohio 2018)

Court Description: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. # 60 ); OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS THERETO (DOC. # 61 ); SUSTAINING DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.'S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS COMPL AINT (DOC. # 53 ); DISMISSING COMPLAINT (DOC. # 2 ) WITH PREJUDICE; OVERRULING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONFIRM THE STATUS OF MELINDA JO SMITH (DOC. #57); JUDGMENT TO ENTER IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF; TERMINATION ENTRY. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 8/31/18. (pb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF
Howard v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. f/k/a Norwest Mortgage, Inc. et al Doc. 63 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION CORBIN J. HOWARD, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 3:11-cv-116 WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE fka Norwest Mortgage, et al., JUDGE WALTER H. RICE Defendants. DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. #60); OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS THERETO (DOC. #61 ); SUSTAINING DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.'S RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT (DOC. #53); DISMISSING COMPLAINT (DOC. #2) WITH PREJUDICE; OVERRULING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CONFIRM THE STATUS OF MELINDA JO SMITH (DOC. #57); JUDGMENT TO ENTER IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF; TERMINATION ENTRY Based on the reasoning and citations of authority set forth by United States Magistrate Judge Sharon Ovington in her Report and Recommendations, Doc. #60, as well as upon a thorough de novo review of this Court's file and the applicable law, the Court ADOPTS said judicial filing in its entirety. The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections to the Report and Recommendations, Doc. #61. Plaintiff admits that he failed to disclose the abovecaptioned case to the Bankruptcy Court when he filed his Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition; he maintains that this was because the case was closed. However, it Dockets.Justia.com was never closed; it was simply stayed pending the outcome of the foreclosure action in state court. See Docs. ##30, 31. Accordingly, he had a duty to disclose its existence. Because he failed to do so, he is judicially estopped from pursuing any of the claims asserted in this action. In addition, although Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Ovington's other legal conclusions, that Wells Fargo is not a "debt collector" under the FDCPA, that many of his claims are time-barred, and that he has no private right of action against a creditor for violation of the discharge injunction, he fails to explain how they are incorrect. Plaintiff's request that the Magistrate Judge and the undersigned recuse ourselves because we are "lacking in intelligence" is denied. Although Plaintiff may disagree with the Court's decisions, his disagreement is no basis for recusal. For the reasons explained by Magistrate Judge Ovington, the Court SUSTAINS Defendant's Renewed Motion to Dismiss, Doc. #53, DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Complaint, Doc. #2, and OVERRULES AS MOOT Plaintiff's Motion to Confirm the Status of Melinda Jo Smith, Doc. #57. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Def end ants and against Plaintiff. 1 1 Claims against all other Defendants were dismissed with prejudice on August 29, 2011. Doc. #30. 2 The captioned case is hereby ordered terminated upon the docket records of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, at Dayton. Date: August 31, 2018 t:f.ruc WALTER 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.