United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division
JAMES A. YOCUM, JR., Plaintiff,
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Defendant.
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
August 24, 2017, the magistrate judge to whom this case
previously was assigned entered a report in which she
recommended that the Court dismiss this action with prejudice
and retain jurisdiction to determine whether the Court should
tax costs, including attorney's fees and expenses, to
plaintiff James Yocum, Jr. (Doc. 77). Mr. Yocum filed
objections to the report and recommendation. (Doc. 79).
Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC filed a response to Mr.
Yocum's objections. (Doc. 80).
October 2, 2017, the Clerk of Court reassigned this action to
the undersigned for a review of the report and
recommendation, Mr. Yocum's objections, and
Nationstar's response. (Doc. 81). The Court held a
hearing on Mr. Yocum's objections on October 31, 2017.
Mr. Yocum attended the hearing, and, during the hearing, the
Court offered Mr. Yocum an opportunity to provide testimony
to supplement his objections. Mr. Yocum declined the
invitation. (October 31, 2017 minute entry).
district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When
a party objects to a report and recommendation, the district
court must “make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.”
Id. The Court reviews for plain error proposed
factual findings to which no objection is made, and the Court
reviews propositions of law de novo. Garvey v.
Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see
also United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th
Cir. 1983) (per curiam), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1050
(1984) (“The failure to object to the magistrate's
findings of fact prohibits an attack on appeal of the factual
findings adopted by the district court except on grounds of
plain error or manifest injustice.”) (internal citation
omitted); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed.Appx. 781,
784 (11th Cir. 2006).
on the Court's review of the record in this case,
consistent with the discussion during the October 31, 2017
hearing in this matter, the Court adopts the factual findings
contained in the magistrate judge's August 24, 2017
report and recommendation,  except the Court strikes from the
report and recommendation most of the full paragraph that
appears on page 14 of the report and recommendation.
(See Doc. 77, p. 14).
consistent with the findings made on the record during the
October 31, 2017 hearing in this case, pursuant to the
Court's inherent authority, the Court accepts the
magistrate judge's recommendation that the Court dismiss
this action with prejudice because of Mr. Yocum's
intentional misrepresentations and retain jurisdiction to
consider Nationstar's motion for sanctions against Mr.
Yocum. See Allapattah Serv., Inc., v. Exxon Corp.,
372 F.Supp. 1344, 1373 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (citing Chambers
v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-45 (1991)); Petrano
v. Old Republic Nat. Title Ins. Co., 2013 WL 1325030
(N.D. Fla. 2013) (granting dismissal with prejudice pursuant
to the court's inherent authority to sanction and
retaining jurisdiction for the imposition of costs and fees
as a further sanction); Aguiar v. Natbony, 2011 WL
4387180 (S.D. Fla. 2011) (awarding costs and fees to the
defendant as a prevailing party after plaintiffs claims were
struck as a sanction).
Court will enter a separate order consistent with this
 A transcript of the hearing is
available upon request.
 The magistrate judge's findings
regarding Mr. Yocum's intentional misrepresentations are
consistent with the findings in a state court order which
appears in the record at Doc. 80-2.
 For clarity, the Court strikes from
the report and recommendation the following language:
While the assistance of counsel has made no difference
in Plaintiff's misrepresentations, the undersigned is
unable to determine whether counsel was complicit in
Plaintiff's false statements or simply failed to
investigate the facts of the case and the allegations of the
pleadings he signed. Nonetheless, the court finds
Plaintiff's characterization, through counsel, that the
state court in Yocum III “refused to impose
sanctions, ” is misleading at best. (Doc. 72 at 2,
n.2). In its oral statements during a hearing on June 26,
2017, as well as in a subsequent written order, the state
court merely declined to rule on the ...