District Court, D. New Mexico, 2018

Moya v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

District Court, D. New Mexico · Decided June 29, 2018

328 F. Supp. 3d 1232 (Federal Supplement, Third Series)

Counsel

*1235Cynthia Moya, Corrales, New Mexico, Plaintiff pro se, Charlie S. Baser, Jordan L. Kessler, Larry J. Montano, Holland & Hart, LLP, Santa Fe, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Defendants, THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, filed May 31, 2018 (Doc. 18)("PFRD"); and (ii) the Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss, filed February 7, 2018 (Doc. 4)("Motion to Dismiss"). Because the Court concludes that the PFRD is not clearly erroneous, arbitrary, obviously contrary to law, or an abuse of discretion, the Court will adopt the PFRD. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff Cynthia Moya's Presentment in for Adverse Claim of Possession, filed in state court on January 5, 2018, filed in federal court February 1, 2018 (Doc. 1-1)("Complaint")., Moya filed the Complaint in the Thirteenth Judicial District, County of Sandoval, *1236State of New Mexico, on January 5, 2018. See Complaint at 4. As "affirmative relief," Moya requests possession of certain real property. See Complaint at 7. The Defendants assert that they are the holders of the Note and mortgage on the property at issue, and the loan servicing company. See Defendants Wells Fargo Bank N.A. and Select Portfolio Servicing Inc.'s Notice of Removal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 at 1, filed February 1, 2018 (Doc. 1)("Notice of Removal"); Affidavit of Kajay Williams in Support of Wells Fargo's Motion for Summary Judgment on All of the Claims and Defenses Asserted in this Lawsuit ¶¶ 6-17, at 2, (dated June 5, 2015), filed February 1, 2018 (Doc. 1-3)("Williams Aff."). The Defendants removed the case to federal court on February 1, 2018. See Notice of Removal at 1. Soon thereafter, the Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss. See Motion to Dismiss at 1. The Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss Moya's claim because she has not established the elements of adverse possession under New Mexico law. See Motion to Dismiss at 4-5., A pro se litigant's pleadings "are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1096 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) ). The Tenth Circuit explains that, "Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.' " Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188, 1190 (10th Cir. 2012). Here, a statute governs the claim at issue -- adverse possession. See N.M. Stat. Ann. § 37-1-22. Under this statute, "[a]dverse possession is defined as 'an actual and visible appropriation of land, commenced and continued under a color of title and claim of right inconsistent with and hostile to the claim of another," City of Rio Rancho v. Amrep Southwest, Inc., 2011-NMSC-037, ¶ 21, 150 N.M. 428, 260 P.3d 414 (quoting N.M. Stat. Ann. § 37-1-22 ), for a period of ten years, see N.M. Stat. Ann. 37-1-22. "The burden of proving adverse *1237possession is on the party asserting it, and it must be proven by clear and convincing evidence." Board of Trustees of the Tecolote Land Grant v. Griego, 2005-NMCA-007, ¶ 7, 136 N.M. 688, 104 P.3d 554, 557 (citation omitted). Thus, "[a] party claiming ownership of land by adverse possession must prove by clear and convincing evidence continuous adverse possession for ten years under color of title, in good faith, and payment of taxes on the property during these years." Williams v. Howell, 1989-NMSC-009, ¶ 10, 108 N.M. 225, 770 P.2d 870, 872. "If any one of the necessary elements required to establish title by adverse possession is lacking, title by adverse possession cannot be proven." Slemmons v. Massie, 1984-NMSC-108, ¶ 6, 102 N.M. 33, 690 P.2d 1027, 1028., District courts may refer dispositive motions to a Magistrate Judge for a recommended disposition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1) ("A magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings when assigned, without the parties' consent, to hear a pretrial matter dispositive of a claim or defense ...."). Rule 72(b)(2) governs objections: "Within 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." Finally, when resolving objections to a Magistrate Judge's proposal, "[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 636 provides:, " 'The filing of objections to a magistrate's report enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues -- factual and legal -- that are at the heart of the parties' dispute.' " United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., With Bldgs., Appurtenances, Improvements, and Contents, 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996) (" One Parcel")(quoting Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985) ). As the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has noted, "the filing of objections advances the interests that underlie the Magistrate's Act[, 28 U.S.C. §§ 631 - 639 ], including judicial efficiency." One Parcel, 73 F.3d at 1059 (citing Niehaus v. Kan. Bar Ass'n, 793 F.2d 1159, 1165 (10th Cir. 1986) ; United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 950 (6th Cir. 1981) )., The Tenth Circuit held "that a party's objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review." One Parcel, 73 F.3d at 1060. "To further advance the policies behind the Magistrate's Act, [the Tenth Circuit], *1238like numerous other circuits, have adopted 'a firm waiver rule' that 'provides that the failure to make timely objections to the magistrate's findings or recommendations waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions.' " One Parcel, 73 F.3d at 1059 (citations omitted). In addition to requiring specificity in objections, the Tenth Circuit has stated that "[i]ssues raised for the first time in objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation are deemed waived." Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996). See United States v. Garfinkle, 261 F.3d 1030, 1031 (10th Cir. 2001) ("In this circuit, theories raised for the first time in objections to the magistrate judge's report are deemed waived."). In an unpublished opinion, the Tenth Circuit stated that "the district court correctly held that [a petitioner] had waived [an] argument by failing to raise it before the magistrate." Pevehouse v. Scibana, 229 F. App'x 795, 796 (10th Cir. 2007) (unpublished).1, In One Parcel, the Tenth Circuit, in accord with other Courts of Appeals, expanded the waiver rule to cover objections that are timely but too general. See One Parcel, 73 F.3d at 1060. The Supreme Court of the United States of America -- in the course of approving the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit's use of the waiver rule -- noted:, "[I]n providing for a 'de novo determination' rather than de novo hearing, Congress intended to permit whatever reliance a district judge, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, chose to place on a magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations.", A district court must "clearly indicate that it is conducting a de novo determination" when a party objects to the Magistrate Judge's report "based upon conflicting evidence or testimony." Gee v. Estes, 829 F.2d at 1009. On the other hand, a district court fails to meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) when it indicates that it gave "considerable deference to the magistrate's order." Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1464 (10th Cir. 1988). A district court need not, however, "make any specific findings; the district court must merely conduct a de novo review of the record." Garcia v. City of Albuquerque, 232 F.3d 760, 766 (10th Cir. 2000). "[T]he district court is presumed to know that de novo review is required. Consequently, a brief order expressly stating the court conducted de novo review is sufficient." Northington v. Marin, 102 F.3d 1564, 1570 (10th Cir. 1996) (citing In re Griego, 64 F.3d at 583-84 ). "[E]xpress references to de novo review in its order must be taken to mean it properly considered the pertinent portions of the record, absent some clear indication otherwise." Bratcher v. Bray-Doyle Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 42, 8 F.3d 722, 724 (10th Cir. 1993). The Tenth Circuit has previously held that a district court properly conducted a de novo review of a party's evidentiary objections when the district court's "terse" order contained one sentence for each of the party's "substantive claims" and did "not mention his procedural challenges to the jurisdiction of the magistrate to hear the motion." Garcia v. City of Albuquerque, 232 F.3d at 766. The Tenth Circuit has explained that brief district court orders that "merely repeat[ ] the language of § 636(b)(1) to indicate its compliance" are sufficient to demonstrate that the district court conducted a de novo review:

Opinion of the Court

It is common practice among district judges in this circuit to make such a statement and adopt the magistrate judges' recommended dispositions when they find that magistrate judges have dealt with the issues fully and accurately and that they could add little of value to that analysis. We cannot interpret the district court's statement as establishing that it failed to perform the required de novo review.

In re Griego, 64 F.3d at 584.

Notably, because "Congress intended to permit whatever reliance a district judge, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, chose to place on a magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations," United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. at 676, 100 S.Ct. 2406 (emphasis omitted), a district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate," 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See Bratcher v. Bray-Doyle Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 42, 8 F.3d at 724-25 (holding that the district court's *1241adoption of the Magistrate Judge's "particular reasonable-hour estimates" is consistent with the de novo determination that 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and United States v. Raddatz require).

Where no party objects to the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings and recommended disposition, the Court has, as a matter of course and in the interests of justice, reviewed the magistrate judge's recommendations. In Pablo v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CIV 11-0132, 2013 WL 1010401 (D.N.M. February 27, 2013) (Browning, J.), the Plaintiff failed to respond to the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommended disposition, and thus waived his right to appeal the recommendations, but the Court nevertheless conducted a review. See 2013 WL 1010401, at *1, *4. The Court generally does not, however, "review the PF & RD de novo, because the parties have not objected thereto, but rather review[s] the recommendations to determine whether they are clearly erroneous, arbitrary, obviously contrary to law, or an abuse of discretion." 2013 WL 1010401, at *4. The Court, thus, does not determine independently what it would do if the issues had come before the Court first, when there is no objection, but rather adopts the proposed findings and recommended disposition where " 'the Court cannot say that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation ... is clearly erroneous, arbitrary, obviously contrary to law, or an abuse of discretion.' " Pablo v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 2013 WL 1010401, at *3 (footnote and internal brackets omitted)(quoting Workheiser v. City of Clovis, No. CIV 12-0485, 2012 WL 6846401, at *3 (D.N.M. December 28, 2012) (Browning, J.). See Alexandre v. Astrue, No. CIV 11-0384, 2013 WL 1010439, at *4 (D.N.M. February 27, 2013) (Browning, J.)("The Court rather reviewed the findings and recommendations ... to determine if they are clearly erroneous, arbitrary, obviously contrary to law, or an abuse of discretion. The Court determines that they are not, and will therefore adopt the PFRD."); Trujillo v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CIV 12-1125, 2013 WL 1009050, at *5 (D.N.M. February 28, 2013) (Browning, J.)(adopting the proposed findings and conclusions, and noting: "The Court did not review the ARD de novo, because Trujillo has not objected to it, but rather reviewed the ... findings and recommendation to determine if they are clearly erroneous, arbitrary, obviously contrary to law, or an abuse of discretion, which they are not."). This review, which is deferential to the Magistrate Judge's work when there is no objection, nonetheless provides some review in the interest of justice, and seems more consistent with the waiver rule's intent than no review at all or a full-fledged review. Accordingly, the Court considers this standard of review appropriate. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. at 151, 106 S.Ct. 466 ("There is nothing in those Reports, however, that demonstrates an intent to require the district court to give any more consideration to the magistrate's report than the court considers appropriate."). The Court is reluctant to have no review at all if its name is signed the bottom of the order adopting the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings and recommendations.

ANALYSIS

The Court has carefully reviewed the PFRD and the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Court did not review the PFRD de novo, because the parties have not objected to the PFRD, but, rather, reviewed Magistrate Judge Ritter's PFRD

*1242to determine if it is clearly erroneous, arbitrary, obviously contrary to law, or an abuse of discretion. See Alexandre v. Astrue, 2013 WL 1010439, at *4. The Court concludes that the PFRD is not clearly erroneous, arbitrary, obviously contrary to law, or an abuse of discretion. Rather, taking all facts stated in the Complaint as true, Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead the elements of adverse possession under New Mexico law. Accordingly, the Court agrees that the Court should dismiss the Complaint.

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss, filed February 7, 2018 (Doc. 4), is granted. This case is dismissed with prejudice. The requests in the Plaintiff's Letter from Moya, to the Court, dated June 6, 2018, filed June 7, 2018 (Doc. 19), are denied as moot.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.