You're viewing Docket Item 42 from the case Cantu et al v. Bank of America, N.A. et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 4:13-cv-00338-RC-ALM Document 42 Filed 10/21/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 519

**NOT FOR PRINTED PUBLICATION**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION



Plaintiffs,

V.

VICTOR H. CANTU and
JAYME L. CANTU

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. D/B/A
§
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP,
§
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION A/K/A FANNIE MAE,
§
and GREG BERTRAND, MIKE VESTAL, §
§
SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE,
§
§
§

Defendants.

CASE NO. 4:13cv338
Judge Clark/Judge Mazzant

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action,

this matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636. On October 1, 2013, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing

proposed findings of fact and recommendations that Plaintiffs’ Emergency Temporary Retraining

Order and Application for Temporary Injunction [Doc. #28] be denied [Doc. #29]. On October

1, 2013, Plaintiffs filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge [Doc. #30]. On October 2, 2013, Defendants filed a response [Doc. #33].

Plaintiffs seek an injunction to stop their eviction. The Magistrate Judge recommended

denial of this request because the foreclosure has already taken place and Plaintiffs lost any

1

Case 4:13-cv-00338-RC-ALM Document 42 Filed 10/21/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 520

ownership interest in the property in question. Plaintiffs’ objections assert that they meet the

standard for an injunction, and they attack the foreclosure. The Magistrate Judge is correct that

Plaintiffs are no longer the owners of the property in question and there is no basis for the court

to intervene to stop the enforcement of a state court judgment. This court lost any ability to enter

an injunction after the foreclosure took place.

Having received the report of the United States Magistrate Judge, and considering the

objections thereto filed by Plaintiffs [Doc. #30], this court is of the opinion that the findings and

conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s report as the

findings and conclusions of the court.

It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Emergency Temporary Retraining Order and

Application for Temporary Injunction [Doc. #28] is denied.

2