Reedy v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation

Order – Page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JASON MARC REEDY,
Plaintiff,
v.
FREEDOM MORTGAGE
CORPORATION,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:25-CV-01810-L-BT
ORDER
On December 10, 2025, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 7) was entered, recommending that the court grant
Defendant Freedom Mortgage Corporation’s (“Defendant” or “Freedom”) Motion to Dismiss
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6) (“Motion”) (Doc.4) and dismiss Jason Marc
Reedy’s (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Reedy”) claims with prejudice. The magistrate judge determined that
Defendant’s Motion should be granted and Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed with prejudice.
No objections to the Report have been filed, and the 14-day period to object after service of the
Report has passed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford determined that Plaintiff fails to state a claim under
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA); his claim for injunctive relief fails; he is not
entitled to attorney’s fees; and his claims should be dismissed with prejudice. See Report. The
court agrees.
First Magistrate Judge Rutherford found that Plaintiff fails to state a claim under RESPA.
Id. at 8. Plaintiff asserted that Defendant “violated ‘Section 5 of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. § 2604(c).’” Id. Magistrate Judge Rutherford determined that
Case 3:25-cv-01810-L-BT Document 8 Filed 03/04/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

Order – Page 2
Plaintiff had not pled “facts sufficient to show that it is plausible that Freedom violated 12 U.S.C.
§ 2604(c).” Id. at 8-9. Additionally, she noted that § 2604(c) does not contain a private right of
action. Id. at 9. Therefore, Magistrate Judge Rutherford found that dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)
is proper. Id.
Second, Magistrate Judge Rutherford found that Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief fails.
Id. She states, “[a]bsent any other underlying substantive claim that should survive dismissal, the
District Judge should dismiss [Mr.] Reedy’s request for permanent injunctive relief.” Id. at 10
(citations omitted). Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief should be dismissed. Id.
Third, Magistrate Judge Rutherford found that Plaintiff is not entitled to attorney’s fees.
Id. Plaintiff is seeking attorney’s fees; however, Plaintiff “is proceeding pro se, is not an attorney,
and has not stated a viable claim from relief.” Id. Therefore, Magistrate Judge Rutherford
recommends that Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees should be denied.
Finally, Magistrate Judge Rutherford recommends that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed with
prejudice. Id. Plaintiff had filed a “virtually identical action” previously. Id. at 3. Magistrate Judge
Rutherford notes that the magistrate judge and the district judge in Plaintiff’s prior similar action
advised him that his allegations did not state a claim for relief; Plaintiff had several months to
amend before that action was dismissed; and, when filing this action, Plaintiff “asserted the same
§ 2406(c) claim, based on the same conduct, against the same defendant.” Id. at 10-11. Further, in
both this case and Plaintiff’s prior similar action, Plaintiff was ordered to respond to Motions to
Dismiss, but he disregarded those orders and did not file responses. Id. at 11. Finally, Plaintiff did
not file objections to the Report to give the court notice of how the defects in his Complaint might
be cured. Therefore, Magistrate Judge Rutherford recommends that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed
with prejudice.
Case 3:25-cv-01810-L-BT Document 8 Filed 03/04/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

Order – Page 3
After considering the pleadings, file, record, Report, and applicable law, the court
determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them
as those of the court. Accordingly, the court grants Defendant’s Motion and dismisses with
prejudice Plaintiff’s claims.
It is so ordered this 4th day of March, 2026.
_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01810-L-BT Document 8 Filed 03/04/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>