Michael J. Jones and Tamera A. Jones v. Pioneer Bank, Adriann Ragsdale, Dee Ann...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO ____________________

MICHAEL J. JONES and

TAMERA A. JONES,

Plaintiffs, v. No. 2:25-cv-00472-MLG-GJF

PIONEER BANK, ADRIANN RAGSDALE,

DEE ANN NUNEZ, and

DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE, INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOURATT’S

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

Pursuant to the Court’s Order of Referral, Doc. 30, Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Fouratt filed his Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (“PFRD”), Doc. 104, on May 28, 2026, addressing several pending motions. Judge Fouratt recommends (1) granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), Doc. 85; (2) denying without prejudice to refiling Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 43; and (3) denying the following as moot: Pioneer Bank Defendants’1 Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Supplemental Statement in Support of Summary Judgment, Doc. 61; Pioneer Bank Defendants’ Motion to Stay Briefing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, Doc. 89; and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Submit for Decision, Doc. 69. See Doc. 104 at 11-12.

The PFRD notified the parties of their ability to file objections within fourteen days and The Court collectively refers to Defendants Pioneer Bank, Adriann Ragsdale, and Dee Ann Nunez as Pioneer Bank Defendants. warned that failure to timely file objections would waive appellate review.2 Id. at 12. On June 4, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a notice indicating that they did not object to the PFRD. See Doc. 106. Defendants did not file any objections and the deadline for doing so has now passed. Having reviewed the PFRD, and given the lack of objections, the Court finds no reason either in law or fact to depart from the PFRD and will adopt the conclusions memorialized therein.

The Court therefore orders as follows: (1) The PFRD, Doc. 104, is adopted. (2) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), Doc. 85, is granted. (3) Within fourteen days of this Order’s filing, Plaintiffs must file the proposed pleading attached to their Motion for Leave to Conduct Limited Early Discovery, Doc. 94-1, as their Third Amended Complaint. (4) Within fourteen days of the filing of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, Defendants must file their answers or otherwise respond to the amended complaint. (5) Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 43, is denied without prejudice to refiling. (6) Pioneer Bank Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Supplemental Statement in Support of Summary Judgment, Doc. 61; Pioneer Bank Defendants’ Motion to Stay Briefing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, Doc. 89; and Plaintiffs’ Motion to

2 “A party’s objections to [a PFRD] must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review.” U.S. v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). The parties’ failure to timely object to the PFRD thus waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions. Id. at 1059; see also In re Key Energy Res. Inc., 230 F.3d 1197, 1199-1200 (10th Cir. 2000).

Submit for Decision, Doc. 69, are denied as moot.

It is so ordered. }

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MATTHEW L. GARCIA