Wanda Binion v. U.S. Bank, N.A.
699 F. App'x 412
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Binion, proceeding pro se, sued U.S. Bank, N.A., as Trustee (USB) alleging fraud and violations of FDCPA, FCRA, Texas DTPA, and the Due Process Clause following a state-court foreclosure.
- A state court had granted summary judgment for USB in the foreclosure; Binion then filed the federal suit challenging that outcome.
- A magistrate judge recommended dismissal for failure to state a claim and as barred by res judicata and the Rooker–Feldman doctrine; Binion received notice but did not file timely objections.
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed the complaint; Binion also argued her Seventh Amendment jury right was violated and that the state judgment was procured by fraud.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit applied the plain-error/forfeiture framework for unpreserved objections and concluded Binion failed to show clear or obvious error; it affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal claims are barred by res judicata / Rooker–Feldman | Binion argued the federal suit could proceed despite state judgment | USB argued prior state judgment and Rooker–Feldman bar federal relief | Court held claims barred; dismissal appropriate and Binion failed to overcome doctrines |
| Whether state-court judgment was procured by fraud (so doctrines don't apply) | Binion alleged fraud in obtaining the state judgment | USB argued allegations insufficient to vitiate the state judgment | Court held allegations inadequate to show judgment procured by fraud |
| Whether Binion’s Seventh Amendment / due process rights were violated by summary judgment | Binion claimed the state summary judgment and dismissal infringed jury/due process rights | USB and courts treated this as unpreserved and not clearly erroneous | Court held Binion failed to show clear or obvious violation; no plain error relief |
| Whether failure to object to magistrate judge’s report forfeited appellate review | Binion attempted to incorporate district-court arguments on appeal | USB relied on forfeiture rule and lack of timely objections | Court held Binion forfeited objections; plain-error standard applied and not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (procedures and consequences for objections to magistrate recommendations)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error standard for forfeited errors)
- United States v. Miller, 406 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2005) (plain-error requires clear precedent to show obvious error)
- Martins v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 722 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2013) (standards for claiming state judgment procured by fraud)
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (establishing Rooker doctrine precluding federal review of state court judgments)
- D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (limiting federal jurisdiction to review state adjudications)