From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Avalos v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION
Apr 1, 2014
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:13-CV-799-0 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 1, 2014)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:13-CV-799-0

04-01-2014

LEONEL LOPEZ AVALOS, JR., ET AL. v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.


FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [doc. # 8], filed February 18, 2014. In their motion, Defendant requests that the Court dismiss the above-styled and numbered cause pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ("Defs.' Mot.") at 1-6.) Having carefully considered the Defendant's motion, and noting that Plaintiffs wholly failed to file a response, the Court recommends granting Defendant's motion for the reasons stated therein.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to this action has the right to serve and file specific written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after the party has been served with a copy of this document. The United States District Judge need only make a de novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file, by the date stated above, a specific written objection to a proposed factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

ORDER

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is hereby ORDERED that each party is granted until April 15, 2014 to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if objections are filed and the opposing party chooses to file a response, the response shall be filed within seven (7) days of the filing date of the objections.

It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings, conclusions and recommendation, be and hereby is returned to the docket of the United States District Judge.

________________

JEFFREY L. CURETON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JLC/knv


Summaries of

Avalos v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION
Apr 1, 2014
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:13-CV-799-0 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 1, 2014)
Case details for

Avalos v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Case Details

Full title:LEONEL LOPEZ AVALOS, JR., ET AL. v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION

Date published: Apr 1, 2014

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:13-CV-799-0 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 1, 2014)