Hall v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc.
- Rearden
- 1:24-cv-02210
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Hall v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Judge Rearden dismissed the mortgage-foreclosure action with prejudice after adopting an unopposed recommendation.
Anthony Winston Hall and the defendants, including Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. and Justin Crowley; the action was dismissed with prejudice and the case was closed.
What happened
Anthony Winston Hall, representing himself, sued Select Portfolio Servicing Inc., its Chief Financial Officer Justin Crowley, and other unknown agents over a mortgage foreclosure sale. He listed several federal statutes and legal theories in his complaint.
The defendants asked the court to dismiss the complaint for failing to state a legally sufficient claim. Hall did not file a response by the deadlines, although the court treated later filings as opposition to the dismissal motion. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the entire complaint with prejudice, and Hall filed no objections.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. She adopted it, dismissed the action with prejudice, directed the Clerk to close the case, and ordered that a copy of the order be mailed to Hall.
The detailed version
- Hall v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-02210
- Rearden
- Mar. 31, 2025
Background
Anthony Winston Hall, acting without a lawyer, brought an action concerning a mortgage foreclosure sale against Select Portfolio Servicing Inc., its Chief Financial Officer Justin Crowley, and other unknown agents, successors, and assignees. Hall alleged violations involving several authorities, including the Federal Reserve Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Sherman Act, the Fifth Amendment, and other listed laws and legal provisions.
The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. A magistrate judge directed Hall either to oppose the motion or file an amended complaint. Hall did not do so by the initial deadline. He later filed a motion to suppress and a motion for summary judgment, which the magistrate judge and defendants treated as opposition to the dismissal motion. The defendants filed a reply.
Report and Recommendation
On January 14, 2025, Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn recommended granting the defendants’ motion and dismissing Hall’s complaint in its entirety with prejudice. The recommendation warned that the parties had 14 days to file objections and that failing to object would waive objections for purposes of appeal. Hall filed no objections and did not request more time.
Court’s Review and Ruling
Because Hall did not object, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of the disputed issues. The court stated that it had reviewed the recommendation, found no clear error, and considered it well reasoned and grounded in fact and law. The court adopted the recommendation.
The court dismissed the action with prejudice, directed the Clerk of Court to close the case, and ordered that a copy of the order be mailed to Hall. This was a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and therefore concerned whether the complaint adequately stated a claim, rather than a decision under the classification convention on the ultimate merits of the asserted claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.