Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Tauro v. Capital One Financial Corporation

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

December 22, 2016

JOHN J. TAURO, Plaintiff,
v.
CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, CAPITAL ONE NA, CAPITAL ONE BANK NA USA Defendants. Re: ECF Nos. 42, 45

          Maureen P. Kelly, Chief Magistrate Judge

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Joy Flowers Conti, Chief United States District Judge

         I. Introduction

         Presently before the court are objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 62) and a Reply to Defendant's Response (ECF No. 64) filed by plaintiff John Tauro (“plaintiff”). Plaintiff raises several objections to the Report and Recommendation filed by the magistrate judge on October 26, 2016. (ECF No. 61.)

         As set forth below, this court finds that plaintiff's objections are without merit. For this reason, plaintiff's objections are denied and the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation will be adopted.

         II. Background

         On December 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint (the “complaint”) against defendants Capital One Financial Corporation (“Capital One Financial”), Capital One NA (“CONA”), and Capital One Bank NA (USA) (“COBNA”) (collectively “defendants”) (ECF No. 21.) On March 9, 2016, defendants filed answers and affirmative defenses. (ECF No. 33-35.)

         On April 1, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment and accompanying brief. (ECF Nos. 37-38.) On April 4, 2016, this court entered an order striking that motion for failure to comply with Local Rule 56. (ECF No. 40.) On April 4, 2016, plaintiff filed the instant motion for summary judgment and supporting documents. (ECF Nos. 42-44.) On May 27, 2016, defendants filed a brief in opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 51.)

         On April 29, 2016, defendants filed their motion for summary judgment and supporting documents. (ECF Nos. 45-48.) On May 4, 2016, plaintiff filed a brief in opposition. (ECF No. 50.) On June 6, 2016, defendants filed a reply brief and a reply to facts. (ECF Nos. 56-57.) On June 6, 2016, plaintiff filed a response. (ECF No. 58.)

         On October 26, 2016, Chief Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Maureen P. Kelly, issued a “Report and Recommendation” on the pending summary judgment motions. (ECF No. 61.) The magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be denied and that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted. (Id.) On October 31, 2016, plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 62.) On November 14, 2016, defendants filed a response to plaintiff's objections. (ECF No. 63.) On November 15, 2016, plaintiff filed a response in opposition. (ECF No. 64.) This matter is now fully briefed and ripe for disposition.

         III. Discussion

         On October 31, 2016, plaintiff filed a laundry list of objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation. The best the court can discern is that the plaintiff is objecting to the following:

A. the magistrate judge's characterization of Plaintiff as an “experienced litigant” and any heightened standards applied to Plaintiff as a result of this characterization (ECF No. 62 ¶ 4-5);
B. plaintiff was not notified about substantive changes to Local Rule 56 (ECF No. 62 ¶ 2; ECF No. 64 ¶ 1);
C. the magistrate judge did not consider the entire case file when making the determinations with respect to summary judgment (ECF No. 62 ¶ 7, 11, 13-14; ECF No. 64 ¶ 7, 12);
D. the Report and Recommendation erroneously treated this case as a “debt collection case” (ECF No. 62 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.