Whiting v. NewRez

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Latasha Whiting,
Plaintiff,
v.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil No. 4:25-cv-5383
NewRez,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending is a report and recommendation by Magistrate Judge Christina A. Bryan,
recommending that this case be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Doc. 51. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the
report and recommendation as its memorandum and order and DISMISSES the case WITH
PREJUDICE.
Defendant, a mortgage servicer, foreclosed on and sold Plaintiff’s real property at a
foreclosure sale. Doc. 18 at 14, 31–32. The deed of trust named an original trustee and
granted an interest to an original beneficiary not before this Court. Id. Before the sale, that
original beneficiary assigned its interest to a second beneficiary, who is also not before the
Court, who in turn appointed substitute trustees. Doc. 23-2. At the foreclosure sale, a buyer
purchased the property. Doc. 18 at 31–32.
Plaintiff Latasha Whiting brought claims related to the foreclosure sale in state
court, which Defendant subsequently removed to this Court. See Doc. 1. Plaintiff has twice
since amended her complaint. See Docs. 8, 18. The Second Amended Complaint alleges
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 03, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-05383 Document 59 Filed 06/03/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
wrongful foreclosure, violations of the Texas Property Code and the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, quiet title, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief. Doc. 18 at 6–7. The
Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Bryan, who issued the pending report and
recommendations. Doc. 51.
Plaintiff objects, arguing that the Second Amended Complaint adequately states her
claims and that the report and recommendation erroneously makes factual findings at the
Rule 12 stage. Doc. 53. She also argues that she should be permitted to join the foreclosure
sale purchaser as an additional defendant. Id.
When a party objects to any part of a magistrate judge’s disposition, the district court
reviews the objection de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see
also United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam). The district
court may accept any other portions to which there is no objection if satisfied that no clear
error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v. PPG Industries Inc., 434 F.3d 303,
308 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th
Cir. 1996) (en banc)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note (1983). A
district court need not consider general, frivolous, or conclusory objections to a report and
recommendation. See Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
The Court has reviewed the pleadings, the record, the applicable law, and the
objections. The Court has also reviewed de novo the recommendations of the Magistrate
Judge to which Plaintiff objected. The Court finds that the objections lack merit and
OVERRULES them. No clear error otherwise appears in the report and recommendation.
Case 4:25-cv-05383 Document 59 Filed 06/03/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
The report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted as the
memorandum and order of this Court. Doc. 51. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is
GRANTED. All other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on the 3rd of June, 2026.
__________________________
Nicholas J. Ganjei
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-05383 Document 59 Filed 06/03/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3