Valentine v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.

          ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING AUGUST 1, 2019 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on the August 1, 2019 Recommendation (Doc. # 92) by United States Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews, wherein he recommends that this Court:

• Grant in part and deny in part Defendants PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., PNC Bank, N.A., and PNC Mortgage's (“Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Doc. # 40); and

• Deny Plaintiff Elet Valentine's Opposed Request to File 2nd Amended Complaint and Add Defendants (“Motion to Amend”) (Doc. # 67).

         On August 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Recommendation. (Doc. # 93.) For the reasons that follow, the Court affirms and adopts the Recommendation.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The magistrate judge's Recommendation provides an extensive recitation of the factual and procedural background of this case. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Accordingly, the Court will reiterate the factual background only to the extent necessary to address Plaintiff's objections.

         This case arises out of a dispute between Plaintiff Elet Valentine and Defendants regarding a loan transaction secured by real property located in Denver, Colorado, and the subsequent foreclosure on the property. On August 2, 2018, Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed a Motion for an Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction which sought to enjoin Defendants' foreclosure on her home and to preserve evidence. See generally (Doc. # 6). This Court denied Plaintiff's Motion, and Plaintiff appealed that decision. (Doc. ## 71, 73.)

         Subsequently, Magistrate Judge Crews issued the instant Recommendation. The Recommendation analyzes two pending motions: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Doc. # 40); and Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Doc. # 67). Both Motions have been fully briefed. (Doc. ## 58, 62, 70.)

         II. LEGAL STANDARDS

         A. REVIEW OF A RECOMMENDATION

         When a magistrate judge issues a recommendation on a dispositive matter, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3) requires that the district judge “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's [recommended] disposition that has been properly objected to.” An objection is properly made if it is both timely and specific. United States v. One Parcel of Real Property Known As 2121 East 30th Street, 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996). In conducting its review, “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).

         In the absence of a timely objection, however, “the district court may review a magistrate [judge's] report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that “[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”)).

         B. PRO ...