From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Souders v. Bank of Am.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Feb 6, 2013
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-1074 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2013)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-1074

02-06-2013

LORAYNE E. SOUDERS, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants


(Judge Conner)


ORDER

AND NOW, this 6th day of February, 2013, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt (Doc. 20), recommending that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed as to all claims except FDCPA claims, and, following an independent review of the record, and noting that defendants filed objections to the report (Doc. 22), and the court finding Judge Blewitt's analysis to be thorough and well-reasoned, and the court finding the objections to be without merit and squarely addressed by Judge Blewitt's report (Doc. 20), it is hereby ORDERED that:

Where objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation are filed, the court must perform a de novo review of the contested portions of the report. Supinski v. United Parcel Serv., Civ. A. No. 06-0793, 2009 WL 113796, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2009) (citing Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). "In this regard, Local Rule of Court 72.3 requires 'written objections which . . . specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for those objections.'" Id. (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 07-417, 2008 WL 4186951, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008)).

1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file memorandum (Doc. 26) is GRANTED.
2. The Report and Recommendation of Judge Blewitt (Doc. 20) are ADOPTED.
3. Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) is GRANTED and plaintiff's complaint with respect to all claims except her FDCPA claims against defendants is DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff's motion to amend (Doc. 21) is GRANTED. The amended complaint (Doc. 23) is accepted for purposes of filing. Defendants shall respond to said amended complaint within twenty (20) days. Defendants' motion to strike (Doc. 24) is DENIED.
4. The above-captioned case is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Blewitt for further proceedings.

_______________

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Souders v. Bank of Am.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Feb 6, 2013
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-1074 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2013)
Case details for

Souders v. Bank of Am.

Case Details

Full title:LORAYNE E. SOUDERS, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Feb 6, 2013

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-1074 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2013)

Citing Cases

Nobile v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n

" Rottmund v. Cont'l Assur. Co., 761 F. Supp. 1203, 1208 (E.D. Pa. 1990) (citing Twp. of Aston v. S.W. Del.…

Gary v. Hladik Onorato & Federman, LLP

6A C.J.S. Assignments § 132; see also Ward v. Security Atl. Mortgage Elec. Registration Systems, Inc., 858…