Luis Santiago v. Bank of New York Mellon ( 2020 )

Case: 19-40842 Document: 00515397411 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/28/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals No. 19-40842 Fifth Circuit FILED Summary Calendar April 28, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk LUIS SANTIAGO; LINDA A. SANTIAGO, Plaintiffs−Appellants, versus THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, as successor trustee to JP Morgan Chase Bank, as Trustee for Novastar Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2004-2, Novastar Home Equity Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2004-2; OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, L.L.C., Defendants−Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas No. 4:18-CV-533 Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Luis and Linda Santiago, pro se on appeal, challenge an adverse * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 19-40842 Document: 00515397411 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/28/2020 No. 19-40842 summary judgment denying their multiple claims. In short, the Santiagos purchased property with a home equity note for just under a million dollars in 2004, are in default since 2010, and apparently continue to occupy the prop- erty. Numerous state-court actions ensued, resulting in the denial of the San- tiagos’ voluminous claims, whereupon they sued again, this time in federal court. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The magistrate judge issued a carefully detailed twenty-page Report and Recommendation, impres- sively setting forth the law and the facts. The recommendation was to grant summary judgment and dismiss all claims. The Santiagos raised fifty-one ob- jections to the report. The district judge wrote a comprehensive fourteen-page Memorandum, filed September 10, 2019, denying the objections and adopting the Report and Recommendation as the court’s findings and conclusions. We agree with the district court and the magistrate judge. The Santi- agos’ claims have no merit. And it is time for this controversy to be put to bed. The judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons set forth in the district court’s memorandum. 2