Bonner v. Newrez LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
BERNARD E. BONNER,
Plaintiff,
versus
NEWREZ, LLC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:24-cv-03805
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDA AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff Bernard E. Bonner proceeds here pro se. He
sued Defendant NewRez, LLC, in the 215th Judicial
District Court of Harris County, Texas, to prevent
foreclosure sale. See Dkt 1-3 (original petition). Defendant
removed based on diversity jurisdiction. Dkt 1 at 2–3. The
matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate Judge
Christina A. Bryan. Dkt 7.
Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings. Dkt 38. Plaintiff then moved to remand, arguing
that diversity jurisdiction was lacking. Dkt 46. Judge
Bryan entered a Memorandum and Recommendation
recommending that the motion to remand be denied.
Dkt 55. She then entered a second Memorandum and
Recommendation recommending that Defendant’s motion
for judgment on the pleadings be granted and this action
be dismissed with prejudice. Dkt 56.
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of
a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(C); see
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 31, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-03805 Document 59 Filed 03/31/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no
clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v
PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
Plaintiff filed objections. Dkt 57. On de novo review and
determination, they lack merit.
Plaintiff complains that Defendant failed to meet its
burden of establishing complete diversity and the amount
in controversy. Id at 2. But Defendant specified its
corporate structure in the notice of removal, and these were
sufficient to support its citizenship in Delaware and New
York. See Dkt 1 at 2. The Memorandum and
Recommendation also correctly concluded that the amount
in controversy is determined by the value of the property
at issue, which exceeds the minimum threshold. See
Dkt 55 at 4.
Plaintiff also objects to consideration by the Magistrate
Judge of exhibits attached to the motion for judgment on
the pleadings. See Dkt 57 at 3–4. But the note, deed of
trust, assignment, and notice of acceleration and notice of
trustee’s sale were properly considered as referenced
within and central to Plaintiff’s claims. See Dkt 56 at 4–5.
On consideration of the petition and materials referenced
therein, the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that
Plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief and that
amendment would be futile. Id at 5–8.
The objections otherwise lack merit. As such, the
objections by Plaintiff Bernard E. Bonner to the
Memoranda and Recommendations of the Magistrate
Judge are OVERRULED. Dkt 57.
No clear error otherwise 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. Dkts 55 & 56.
Case 4:24-cv-03805 Document 59 Filed 03/31/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
The motion by Plaintiff Bernard E. Bonner to remand
is DENIED. Dkt 46.
The motion by Defendant NewRez, LLC, for judgment
on the pleadings is GRANTED. Dkt 38.
This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
A final judgment will enter separately.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on March 31, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:24-cv-03805 Document 59 Filed 03/31/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3