Eugene Elwin Thomas, ex rel. v. McCabe, Weisberg & Conway LLC and Deutsche Bank

Background

The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Gary Stein for settlement purposes, general pretrial supervision, and a report and recommendation on motions to dismiss. Deutsche Bank filed its motion on October 29, 2024, and McCabe, Weisberg & Conway LLC filed its motion on December 20, 2024. The motions were fully briefed by February 7, 2025.

Report and Recommendation

On August 15, 2025, Judge Stein recommended granting both motions. The recommendation stated that Thomas’s claims for slander of title, injunctive relief, and declaratory judgment were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which limits federal district courts’ ability to review certain state-court judgments, and by collateral estoppel, which prevents relitigating issues already decided. It further recommended dismissing Thomas’s claims against Deutsche Bank other than his claim under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act under res judicata, which generally bars repeated litigation of the same claim. It recommended that Thomas’s second, third, and fourth causes of action against both defendants be dismissed as barred by collateral estoppel, and that the remaining claims against both defendants be dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the rule allowing dismissal when a complaint does not allege a legally sufficient claim.

The recommendation also stated that Thomas should not receive permission to amend the complaint because he had not requested amendment and, in any event, amendment would be futile in light of multiple prior unsuccessful attempts to litigate essentially the same claims. The parties were notified that objections were due within 14 days, but no objections were filed.

Ruling

Judge Margaret M. Garnett reviewed the record for clear error and found none. She adopted Judge Stein’s recommendation in its entirety. The court granted the motions at Docket Nos. 13 and 27 and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate those motions and close the case. The opinion does not separately state a different final disposition for the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act claim beyond the court’s grant of the motions and closure of the case.