United States District Court, D. Colorado
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 ...