United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
C. MARKS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
pending before the Court is the Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (doc. 14) which recommends that the
Defendants' motions to dismiss (docs. 1-10, 1-11, &
1-12) be granted and that this case be dismissed because the
Plaintiff's claims are barred by res judicata.
The Plaintiff did not file any objections to the
Recommendation, but instead, chose to file a motion to amend
the complaint on July 24, 2019 (doc. 15). The Defendants
object to the proposed amended complaint and filed a motion
to strike. (Doc. 16).
Court turns first to the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the
Complaint (doc. 15). While leave to amend should be
“freely given when justice so requires, ” the
Court can deny amendments when (1) the amendment would be
prejudicial to the opposing party; (2) there has been undue
delay or bad faith on the part of the moving party; or (3)
the amendment would be futile. See Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
See also Jameson v. Arrow Co., 75 F.3d
1528, 1534 (11th Cir. 1996). Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a)(2), a “court should freely give leave to amend
when justice so requires.” “A district court need
not, however, allow an amendment . . . where amendment would
be futile.” Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161,
1163 (11th Cir. 1001) (citing Foman, 371 U.S. at
182). The Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint
simply restates the claims presented in the original
complaint, removes the FDIC as a defendant presumably in an
effort to destroy the Court's jurisdiction, and adds a
party, PHH Mortgage. The Recommendation effectively addresses
all of the Plaintiff's claims and concludes that the
Plaintiff's claims are barred by res judiciata.
The Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint cannot defeat
the res judicata bar that prohibits continued
litigation of his claims. Consequently, the Court concludes
that the Plaintiff's motion to amend is futile, and is
therefore due to be denied.
previously noted, the Plaintiff filed no objections to the
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. After an
independent review of the file and upon consideration of the
Recommendation, and for good cause, it is
as follows that:
Plaintiff's motion to amend (doc. 15) is DENIED;
Defendants' motion to strike (doc. 16) is DENIED as moot;
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 14) is ADOPTED;
Plaintiff's Motion in Opposition to Dismiss (doc. 1-7),
the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend and Motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order (doc. 1-9) and the
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (doc. 4) are DENIED;
Defendants' motions to dismiss (docs. 1-10, 1-11, 1-12)
case is DISMISSED with prejudice; and
costs are TAXED against Plaintiff for which execution may
separate Final ...