Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

CIGLER v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, 2:15cv17. (2015)

Court: District Court, N.D. Indiana Number: infdco20150924983 Visitors: 7
Filed: Sep. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 23, 2015
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAM C. LEE , District Judge . This matter is before the court on a "Motion for Clarification of Opinion and Order", filed by the Plaintiff, Joseph A. Cigler ("Cigler"), proceeding pro se, on September 17, 2015. The defendant has declined to file a response. For the following reasons, the motion will be denied. Cigler filed this case in state court on December 1, 2014. The defendant then removed to this court on January 12, 2015. On January 20, 2015, the defendant fi
More

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on a "Motion for Clarification of Opinion and Order", filed by the Plaintiff, Joseph A. Cigler ("Cigler"), proceeding pro se, on September 17, 2015. The defendant has declined to file a response. For the following reasons, the motion will be denied.

Cigler filed this case in state court on December 1, 2014. The defendant then removed to this court on January 12, 2015. On January 20, 2015, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which prompted Cigler to file a motion to remand the case back to state court. On March 18, 2015, this court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss and denied Cigler's motion to remand.

On April 3, 2015, Cigler filed a motion to reopen the case, which was denied on May 27, 2015. Undeterred, on July 13, 2015, Cigler filed another motion to reopen case and remand to state court. This motion was denied on August 13, 2015.

Cigler has now filed a motion for clarification, in which he essentially re-states his belief that he has a valid claim against the defendant and should be able to proceed with his case. Nevertheless, for the reasons stated in this court's previous orders, Cigler has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Thus, the grant of the motion to dismiss was proper and USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00017-WCL-JEM document 22 filed 09/23/15 page 2 of 2 Cigler's "motion for clarification" will be denied. If Cigler continues to disagree with this court's rulings, it is suggested that Cigler seek redress with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Conclusion

On the basis of the foregoing, Cigler's "motion for clarification" is hereby DENIED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer