John M. McMahan v. U.S. Bank National Association, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT January 31, 2026 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION JOHN M. MCMAHAN, § § Plaintiff, § v. § § CIVIL ACTION NO. H-22-1525 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, § et al., § § Defendants. § MEMORANDUM AND OPINION ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION John McMahan, representing himself, has vigorously litigated the foreclosure of his property. In September 2024, the court entered a final judgment, concluding that “[t]he intervenor [lienholder] is entitled to a judgment for judicial foreclosure on the lien evidenced by the deed of trust; to an order permitting foreclosure under the deed of trust under § 51.002 of the Texas Property Code; and to a declaration that John McMahan and his wife’s interests in the property are foreclosed.” (Docket Entry No. 93). The court entered an amended final judgment on November 6, 2024, following a motion by the intervenor. (Docket Entry Nos. 94, 96).

On November 14, 2025, more than one year after the amended final judgment was entered, McMahan filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment and Objection to Foreclosure, (Docket Entry No. 97), and a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Rule 60(b) Motion, (Docket Entry No. 98).

Three days later, McMahan filed a Motion for Acceptance as Timely Filed and Extension of Time, (Docket Entry No. 99), and an Amended Motion for Relief from Judgment and Objection to Foreclosure, (Docket Entry No. 100). The intervenor responded. (Docket Entry Nos. 101, 103).

On December 10, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton entered a Memorandum and Recommendation, recommending that the court deny all four pending motions. (Docket Entry No. 104). McMahan objected, and the intervenor responded. (Docket Entry Nos. 106, 107).

This court has reviewed Judge Hampton’s Memorandum and Recommendation de novo.

FED. R. CIv. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221-22 (Sth Cir. 1989). Based on the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, this court adopts the Memorandum and Recommendation because (1) it correctly finds that the Amended Motion for Relief was untimely; (2) McMahan is not entitled to relief from the amended final judgment due to excusable neglect or lack of due process; (3) McMahan raised many of the same arguments in a prior motion for reconsideration, and the court already correctly rejected those arguments; and (4) McMahan’s arguments otherwise fail on the merits. The objections are overruled as without merit. The case remains closed. McMahan’s motion for a temporary restraining order to enjoin the foreclosure is denied. (Docket Entry No. 108).

SIGNED on January 30, 2026, at Houston, Texas.

Lee H. Rosenthal Senior United States District Judge