SPRADLIN v. LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
JASON D. SPRADLIN,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:25-cv-175-MCR-ZCB
LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING,
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on July 23, 2025.
See ECF No. 25. 	The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and
Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant
to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). 	I have made a de novo
determination of all timely filed objections and responses to objections. 	Having
considered 	the 	Report 	and 	Recommendation 	and 	Plaintiff 	Jason 	Spradlin’s
objections, ECF No. 26, and other filings, ECF Nos. 28 & 29, I will adopt the Report
and Recommendation in full, with three modifications as follows.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. 	Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, ECF No. 22, is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s federal claims
Case 3:25-cv-00175-MCR-ZCB Document 32 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. The dismissal of Plaintiff’s Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) claim against Defendant Williston is with
prejudice because no allegations can change Williston’s status as a natural person,
as opposed to a lender, servicer, or creditor of Spradlin’s Loan, and thus any attempt
at amendment would be futile. Likewise, the dismissal of Plaintiff’s Servicemembers
Civil Relief Act (SCRA) claim is with prejudice because no allegations can change
Spradlin’s status as a non-veteran and thus any amendment would be futile, and the
dismissal of Plaintiff’s Truth In Lending Act (TILA) claim against Defendants is
with prejudice because no allegations can change the Defendants’ status as a non-
creditor and a non-assignee. 	The dismissal of Plaintiff’s Fair Dept Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA) claim is without prejudice.
2. 	The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s 	state 	law 	fraud 	and 	misrepresentation 	claim 	and 	that 	claim 	is
DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff pursuing it in state court.
3. 	Plaintiff’s motion requesting a hearing and for ADA accommodations
at that hearing, ECF No. 28, is DENIED as moot.
4. 	Plaintiff’s motion requesting miscellaneous relief, ECF No. 29, is
DENIED.
Case 3:25-cv-00175-MCR-ZCB Document 32 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
5. 	The Clerk is directed to close this case.
DONE and ORDERED this 3 rd day of March 2026.
M. Casey Rodgers
M. CASEY RODGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-00175-MCR-ZCB Document 32 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 3