United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
October 31, 2019, and December 5, 2019, the Findings,
Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (“Reports”) (Docs. 58, 66) were
entered, recommending that the court: (1) grant the Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 43), filed by
Defendants Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee
for the Holders of New Century Home Equity Loan Trust, Series
2005-A Pass-Through Certificates (“Deutsche
Bank”), and Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”)
(collectively, the “Moving Defendants”); (2)
dismiss with prejudice all claims asserted by Plaintiff
Bradley Evans Parsons (“Plaintiff”) against the
Deutsche Bank and BOA; (3) deny Plaintiff's request to
strike the Moving Defendants' Motion to Dismiss included
in Plaintiff's response to the Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
46); (4) grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff's
Motion to Enter Document As Evidence and Issue Writ of
Execution (Doc. 52), filed May 29, 2019; and (5) deny the
request by Plaintiff in his November 27, 2019 Notice of
Interlocutory Appeal to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) on appeal (Docs. 63, 64), certifying that
the interlocutory appeal Order - Page 1 is
not taken in good faith. In addition, the magistrate judge
recommends that Plaintiff not be allowed to further amend his
claims against the Moving Defendants, as he has already been
given an opportunity to do so once before after the court
dismissed some of his claims without prejudice, and he has
pleaded his best case. No. objections to the Reports were
considered the pleadings, file, record in this case, and
Reports, the court determines that the findings and
conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and
accepts them as those of the court.
Accordingly, the court: (1) grants the
Moving Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint (Doc. 43); (2) dismisses with
prejudice all claims asserted by Plaintiff against
Deutsche Bank and BOA; (3) denies
Plaintiff's request to strike the Moving Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 46); (4) grants in part and
denies in part Plaintiff's Motion to Enter
Document As Evidence and Issue Writ of Execution (Doc.
and (5) denies Plaintiff's request to
proceed IFP in his interlocutory appeal (Docs. 63, 64). The
court also agrees that Plaintiff has pleaded his best case
against Deutsche Bank and BOA and, therefore, will not be
allowed to further amend his pleadings as to these
Defendants, as doing so would only unnecessarily delay the
resolution of this litigation.
the court strikes and dismisses
without prejudice Plaintiff's claims against New
Century Mortgage Corporation (“New Century”), who
was added as a party in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.
While the court allowed Plaintiff to amend his pleadings with
respect to certain claims in ruling on a prior motion to
dismiss filed by Deutsche Bank, it did not give Plaintiff
permission to add any new parties or new
claims by Plaintiff remain in light of this order, the court,
in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, will issue a judgment by separate document. This
order also moots the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 56),
filed by Deutsche Bank and BOA on October 31, 2019. The clerk
of the court shall, therefore, terminate
this motion and all other pending motions.
court prospectively certifies that any
appeal of this action would not be taken in good faith.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P.
24(a)(3). In support of this certification, the court
incorporates by reference the Report.
See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 and n.21 (5th
Cir. 1997). The court concludes that any
appeal of this action would present no legal point of
arguable merit and would, therefore, be frivolous. Howard
v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). In the event
of an appeal, Plaintiff may challenge this certification by
filing a separate motion to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal with the clerk of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See Baugh,
117 F.3d at 202; Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).
is so ordered.
 This motion is
granted, to the extent that the court
considers the contract at issue attached to Plaintiff's
pleadings in ruling on the Moving Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss, and denied, to the extent that
Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to a writ of
execution, because, as explained by the magistrate judge,
Plaintiff has failed to state a valid claim for breach of
 As noted by the magistrate judge, a
summons was issued as to New Century on February 27, 2019,
after Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint, but there is no
indication from the docket sheet that service as to New
Century was ever effected by Plaintiff, and New Century has
not filed an answer or otherwise ...