Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas adopted two magistrate judge memoranda and recommendations in an action brought pro se by Svetlana A. Pestova against US Bank Trust Company. The court granted the remaining motion to dismiss and dismissed the action with prejudice, denied the earlier motion to dismiss as moot, and stated that final judgment would enter separately.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court should adopt the magistrate judge's memoranda and recommendations when no party filed objections and no clear error appeared on the face of the record.
- Whether Defendant's remaining motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should be granted and the action dismissed with prejudice after Plaintiff failed to cure the pleading deficiencies or provide a proposed amended complaint.
- Whether Defendant's earlier motion to dismiss should be denied as moot.
Holdings
- Because no party filed objections and no clear error appeared on the face of the record, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's memoranda and recommendations.
- The remaining motion to dismiss was granted, and Plaintiff's claims were dismissed with prejudice after Plaintiff failed to cure the pleading deficiencies or provide a proposed amended complaint.
- The earlier motion to dismiss was denied as moot.
Key quotations
“No party filed objections. No clear error appears upon review and consideration of the Memoranda and Recommendations, the record, and the applicable law.”
“The Memoranda and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this Court.”
“The motion by Defendant US Bank Trust Company to dismiss is GRANTED.”
Factual background
Svetlana A. Pestova sued US Bank Trust Company for unjust enrichment and injunctive relief. The action was removed from Texas state court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The pleadings did not state a plausible claim for relief, and after being given an opportunity to amend, Pestova neither addressed the identified deficiencies nor supplied a proposed amended complaint.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed an action for unjust enrichment and injunctive relief in the 281st District Court of Harris County, Texas. Defendant removed the action based on diversity jurisdiction and filed two motions to dismiss. After the magistrate judge recommended that one motion be denied as moot and that the remaining motion be granted, subject to an opportunity to amend, Plaintiff filed a putative motion for leave to amend but did not cure the identified deficiencies or provide a proposed amended complaint. The magistrate judge then recommended dismissal with prejudice, and the district court adopted both memoranda and recommendations after finding no objections and no clear error.