Opinion
Civil Action No. 20-cv-01714-RM-NRN
02-19-2021
L.L. LOEB, Plaintiff, v. ARLINGTON ASSETS INVESTMENT CORPORATION, LLC (for subsidiary First NLC Financial Services, LLC), DEUSTCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for Morgan Stanley Home Equity Loan Trust 2005-2, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-2, JP MORGAN CHASE & CO., L.S.I. TITLE SERVICES d/b/a ServiceLink NLS LLC, NATIONWIDE TITLE CLEARING, INC., OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC n/k/a PHH Mortgage Corporation, SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter (ECF No. 112) to grant four pending motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 42, 45, 73, 80). The Court accepts the Recommendation, which is incorporated into this Order by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Recommendation advised Plaintiff that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served a copy of the Recommendation. The deadline for responding to the Recommendation has come and gone without a response from Plaintiff.
"In the absence of a timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge's report under any standard it deems appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.3d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991). Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, the magistrate judge liberally construed her pleadings. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). Nonetheless, the magistrate judge determined that Plaintiff failed to state a claim against Defendants Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc.; L.S.I. Title Services; Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC; Deutsche Bank National Trust Company; and Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. The magistrate judge noted that the Complaint (ECF No. 19) references exhibits that are not attached and that Plaintiff failed to submit any documentation to support her claims in any of her later filings. The magistrate judge further noted that Plaintiff failed to respond substantively to the motions to dismiss despite extensions of time and acceptance of late filings. The magistrate judge then dutifully analyzed Plaintiff's "skeletal allegations" to support her claims for fraud, conspiracy, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and other forms of misconduct and found them insufficient. (ECF No. 112 at 16-23.)
The Court concludes the magistrate judge's analysis was sound and discerns no clear error on the face of the record. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 42, 45, 73, 80).
DATED this 19th day of February, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
/s/_________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge