McMahan v. U.S. Bank National Association et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JOHN M. MCMAHAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-22-1525
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
John McMahan, representing himself, has vigorously litigated the foreclosure of his
property. In September 2024, the court entered a final judgment, concluding that “[t]he intervenor
[lienholder] is entitled to a judgment for judicial foreclosure on the lien evidenced by the deed of
trust; to an order permitting foreclosure under the deed of trust under § 51.002 of the Texas
Property Code; and to a declaration that John McMahan and his wife’s interests in the property are
foreclosed.” 	(Docket Entry No. 93). 	The court entered an amended final judgment on
November 6, 2024, following a motion by the intervenor. (Docket Entry Nos. 94, 96).
On November 14, 2025, more than one year after the amended final judgment was entered,
McMahan filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment and Objection to Foreclosure, (Docket Entry
No. 97), and a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Rule 60(b) Motion, (Docket Entry No. 98).
Three days later, McMahan filed a Motion for Acceptance as Timely Filed and Extension of Time,
(Docket Entry No. 99), and an Amended Motion for Relief from Judgment and Objection to
Foreclosure, (Docket Entry No. 100). The intervenor responded. (Docket Entry Nos. 101, 103).
On December 10, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton entered a Memorandum
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 31, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:22-cv-01525 Document 109 Filed 01/30/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
and Recommendation, recommending that the court deny all four pending motions. (Docket Entry
No. 104). McMahan objected, and the intervenor responded. (Docket Entry Nos. 106, 107).
This court has reviewed Judge Hampton’s Memorandum and Recommendation de novo.
FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221–22
(5th Cir. 1989). 	Based on the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, this court adopts
the Memorandum and Recommendation because (1) it correctly finds that the Amended Motion
for Relief was untimely; (2) McMahan is not entitled to relief from the amended final judgment
due to excusable neglect or lack of due process; (3) McMahan raised many of the same arguments
in a prior motion for reconsideration, and the court already correctly rejected those arguments; and
(4) McMahan’s arguments otherwise fail on the merits. The objections are overruled as without
merit. The case remains closed. McMahan’s motion for a temporary restraining order to enjoin
the foreclosure is denied. (Docket Entry No. 108).
SIGNED on January 30, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
_______________________________________
Lee H. Rosenthal
Senior United States District Judge
Case 4:22-cv-01525 Document 109 Filed 01/30/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2