From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Connell v. Bank of America

United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Sep 16, 2010
Civil File No. 10-3133 (MJD/FLN) (D. Minn. Sep. 16, 2010)

Opinion

Civil File No. 10-3133 (MJD/FLN).

September 16, 2010


Order


The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel dated August 24, 2010. [Docket No. 17] Plaintiff Connell filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including all transcripts filed and exhibits submitted to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon that review, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation.

Additionally, this Court notes that many other courts have dismissed claims similar to Plaintiff's as frivolous, bolstering the argument that Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits.Hennis v. Trustmark Bank, No. 2:10cv20-KS-MTP, 2010 WL 1904860, at *5 (S.D. Miss. May 10, 2010) ("From coast to coast, claims that debts have been paid under the redemption theory by the plaintiffs' issuance of "bills of exchange" have been dismissed as frivolous.").

Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated August 24, 2010 [Docket No. 17].
2. Defendant's Motion for Order to Suspend Foreclosure Process [Docket No. 9] is DENIED

Dated: September 16, 2010


Summaries of

Connell v. Bank of America

United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Sep 16, 2010
Civil File No. 10-3133 (MJD/FLN) (D. Minn. Sep. 16, 2010)
Case details for

Connell v. Bank of America

Case Details

Full title:Dominique J. Connell, Plaintiff, v. Bank of America, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, D. Minnesota

Date published: Sep 16, 2010

Citations

Civil File No. 10-3133 (MJD/FLN) (D. Minn. Sep. 16, 2010)