Moore et al v. Federal National Mortgage Association et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION
CHRISTINE M. MOORE and
MICHAEL MOORE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PRISCILLA ALMODOVAR,
et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
MO:25-CV-00326-DC
ORDER
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Ronald C. Griffin’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 69). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 1(d) of Appendix C of
the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, the
Magistrate Judge filed his report and recommendation on July 7, 2026.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), a party may serve and file specific, written objections
to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after
being served with a copy and, in doing so, secure de novo review by the district court. When
no objections are timely filed, a district court reviews the magistrate’s report and
recommendation for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (“When no
timely objection is filed, the [district] court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”).
Plaintiffs timely filed objections (Doc. 85). The Court has conducted a de novo review
of those portions of the R&R to which Plaintiffs lodged specific objections and reviewed the
remainder for clear error. General, conclusory, frivolous, or unrelated objections do not
Case 7:25-cv-00326-DC-RCG Document 89 Filed 07/28/26 Page 1 of 3

2
require de novo review. See Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987);
Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n. 8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc).
Plaintiffs’ objections contain numerous misstatements of law and the record, along
with generalized grievances not clearly tied to a particular finding or recommendation in the
R&R. Their principal objection is that the Magistrate Judge failed to consider an amended
complaint. But Plaintiffs filed that pleading without leave of Court and outside Rule
15(a)(1)’s amendment-as-of-right window, and it was therefore properly struck. An
amendment filed without required leave “ha[s] no legal effect.” United States ex rel. Mathews v.
HealthSouth Corp., 332 F.3d 293, 296 (5th Cir. 2003). Moreover, a later pleading cannot
retroactively alter the improper-joinder inquiry, which focuses on the plaintiff’s pleadings at
the time of removal. Cavallini v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 44 F.3d 256, 264 (5th Cir.
1995). Plaintiffs’ objection regarding the amended complaint is therefore overruled.
Plaintiffs’ remaining objections likewise identify no error in the R&R. In particular,
Plaintiffs’ pro se status and asserted hardships do not establish good cause for their continued
failure to accomplish service, and the Court declines to grant a further discretionary
extension. See Thrasher v. City of Amarillo, 709 F.3d 509, 512 (5th Cir. 2013).
Pro se status and a “Certification of Citation Verification Under Rule 11(b)(2)” does
not cure inaccurate descriptions of cited authority. For example, Plaintiffs represent that
Bethel v. Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C., 595 S.W.3d 651, 657 (Tex. 2020),
“expressly carved a fraud exception” from attorney immunity. (Doc. 76 at 22). Bethel,
however, held the opposite. There, the Texas Supreme Court held that a general fraud
exception would “significantly undercut” the purpose of attorney immunity, and merely
Case 7:25-cv-00326-DC-RCG Document 89 Filed 07/28/26 Page 2 of 3

3
labeling an attorney’s conduct fraudulent does not remove that conduct from immunity
when it falls within the scope of legal representation. Id. at 657. Here, Plaintiffs identify
Aldridge Pite LLP’s filing of a forcible-detainer action on behalf of its client as the allegedly
fraudulent conduct (Doc. 76 at 22). Filing an action for a client falls within the scope of legal
representation. Plaintiffs’ contrary objection is therefore overruled.
Having conducted the required review, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs’
objections (Doc. 76) and ADOPTS the R&R (Doc. 69). Defendants Mackie Wolf; Joseph
M. Vacek; Israel Saucedo; William Jarrell; Paul Marchuk; Trevor Shoels; David Cobos; and
Marvin Moore are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as nondiverse defendants
previously determined to have been improperly joined. The claims against Defendants
Priscilla Almodovar and Peter Akwaboah are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Aldridge Pite LLP is the sole remaining
defendant in this action.
Plaintiffs’ pending Motion for Leave (Doc. 86) is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this 28th day of July, 2026.
DAVID COUNTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 7:25-cv-00326-DC-RCG Document 89 Filed 07/28/26 Page 3 of 3