# Dumas

> District Court, M.D. Louisiana · January 23, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11245610

## Case

- **Full name:** Walter C. Dumas v. U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for RFMSI 2005S7, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** January 23, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11245610

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

WALTER C. DUMAS CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION NO. 25-00447-BAJ-RLB
AS TRUSTEE FOR RFMSI 2005S7,
ET AL.

RULING AND ORDER

Before the Court are the following Motions:
(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 23);
(2) Defendant Sheriff Sid J. Gautreaux, III’s (“Gautreaux”) Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 19); and
(3) Defendants U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for RFMSI 2005S7
(“U.S. Bank”) and Onity Group Inc.’s (“Onity”) Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings (Doc. 45).1
The Motions are opposed. (Doc. 22; Doc. 26; Doc. 27; Doc. 29; Doc. 35; Doc. 47).
The parties filed Reply Briefs. (Doc. 25; Doc. 40; Doc. 48).
The Magistrate Judge issued a Report And Recommendation (Doc. 49,
the “Report”) recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand
(Doc. 23), grant Gautreaux’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 19), and grant U.S. Bank and
Onity’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 45). (Doc. 49 at 16). The
Magistrate Judge further recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims

1 Onity represents that it was formerly known as Ocwen Financial Corporation. (Doc. 45 at
1; Doc. 52 at 1).
against Defendants with prejudice. (Id.).
Plaintiff objected to the Report and requested that the Court hear oral
argument on his objections. (Doc. 50; Doc. 51). Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s

Objection (Doc. 52; Doc. 53). Plaintiff filed Reply Briefs in further support of his
Objection (Doc. 54; Doc. 55). After carefully considering the pleadings before the
Court, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary.
In this case, Plaintiff seeks to recover damages regarding the seizure and sale
of his home, alleging that Defendants “jointly participated with Louisiana State
officials in the illegal seizure and sale of Plaintiff’s Property in violation of Plaintiff’s
rights secured by the Constitution and Laws of the United States, which provide the

basis for Plaintiff’s claim under 42 U.S.C.A § 1983.” (Doc. 1-1 at 9).
In the Report, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the state court already
ruled on the legality of the seizure and sale of Plaintiff’s property. The Report
emphasized: “Plaintiff is barred from relitigating the legality of the seizure and sale
of Plaintiff’s Property based on any property description discrepancy. No amendment
could fix this issue[.]” (Doc. 49 at 16). As such, the Magistrate Judge recommends

that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims.
Plaintiff objects to the Report, arguing the following: (1) the Court does not
have jurisdiction to hear this case; (2) Plaintiff should be permitted to pursue his
claims against Onity and U.S. Bank regarding the seizure and sale of his property
because issue preclusion is not appropriate; (3) Gautreaux acted with gross
negligence because he did not read the “Writ of Fieri Facias, the attached letter, and
judgment received April 20, 2022[.]” (See generally Doc. 50-1; Doc. 54; Doc. 55).
Defendants U.S. Bank and Onity respond that “Dumas’s objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation merely seek to re-hash the same

tired arguments and do not move the needle.” (Doc. 52 at 2). For the following reasons,
the Court agrees.
First, Plaintiff argues that the Court does not have jurisdiction over this case
because the Court should have granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. (Doc. 50-1 at
4). Plaintiff argues that the Court should have remanded this matter to state court
because Defendant Owcen Financial Corporation did not consent to removal of the
case to this Court. (Id. at 5). The record before the Court, however, shows otherwise.

As the Magistrate Judge already found:
Ocwen Financial Corporation did not consent to the removal of this case
because the entity is now called Onity Group, Inc., not Ocwen Financial
Corporation. As it is clear Onity filed the joint notice of removal
alongside U.S. Bank, through the same counsel, this Court finds there
is no issue with consent in this case. (R. Doc. 1). “It is sufficient that
consent to removal come from some person purporting to act formally on
the defendant’s behalf and with the authority to do so.” Nixon v.
Wheatley, 368 F. Supp. 2d 635, 639 (E.D. Tex. 2005) (quotations and
citations omitted) (cleaned up). Here, U.S. Bank and Onity’s counsel had
the authority to remove on their behalf and did so. The proper parties
joined in the notice of removal, and remand for lack of consent is
unfounded.

(Doc. 49 at 6). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge.
Second, Plaintiff argues that the doctrine of issue preclusion should not
prohibit him from pursuing his claims. Again, however, the record is clear. As the
Magistrate Judge emphasized:
[T]he main issue in this case is whether the seizure and sale of Plaintiff’s
Property was legal or not. Plaintiff argues the seizure was not legal
because the property description included in the Amended Final
Judgment differed slightly from the property description of the property
seized and sold (Plaintiff’s Property). Yet, Plaintiff raised this very
argument in the state foreclosure action, through a Petition for
Injunction to Arrest Seizure and Sale of Immovable Property with Stay
Order to Dismiss Writ of Fieri Facias, Damages, and Attorney Fees. (R.
Docs. 45-3). The state court initially granted his request for a stay, but,
after a hearing again addressing his argument, the state court vacated
the stay and denied and dismissed, with prejudice, Plaintiff’s Petition
for Injunction to Arrest Seizure and Sale of Immovable Property with
Stay Order to Dismiss Writ of Fieri Facias, Damages, and Attorney Fees,
allowing the sale to go forward. (R. Docs. 1-1 at 40; 45-5).

“A writ of seizure and sale in an executory proceeding instituted by a
foreclosing creditor against the borrower is a final judgment for res
judicata purposes once the sale has occurred.” Cavalier,
2015 WL 4429247, at *3 (citations omitted). It is clear the state
concluded the property description issue made by Plaintiff in this case
was immaterial to the legality of the foreclosure sale. Thus, this Court
finds the issue was actually litigated and its determination was
essential to the prior judgment. Id.

(Doc. 49 at 15). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s finding.

Third, Plaintiff argues that Gautreaux acted with gross negligence by failing
to read the documents relevant to the sale of Plaintiff’s property such that Gautreaux
should not be entitled to qualified immunity. (Doc. 50-1 at 12). Plaintiff argues:
In this case defendant Gautreaux’s action clearly show gross negligence.

Defendant Gautreaux received a Writ of Fieri Facias, a letter attached
to the Writ from U.S. Bank and a copy of the February 28, 2022,
Amended Final Judgment. U.S. Bank letter described the property U.S.
Bank wanted seized and sold at Sheriff sale.

The property described in U.S. Bank Writ ofFieri Facias and U.S. Bank
attached letter did not described the property described in the February
28, 2022, Amended Final Judgment.

Sheriff Gautreaux knew he could not seize and sell property not
described in the Writ of Fieri Facias received in his office was the result
of gross negligence.

Defendant Gautreaux, either failed to read the Writ of Fieri Facias or
just ignored it.

(Doc. 54 at 2). As previously described, the state court found the property description
issue Plaintiff asserts in this case to be immaterial to the legality of the foreclosure
sale. (See Doc. 49 at 15). As a result, the state court denied and dismissed Plaintiff’s
“Petition for Injunction to Arrest Seizure and Sale of Immovable Property with Stay
Order to Dismiss Writ of Fieri Facias, Damages, and Attorney Fees,” with prejudice,
permitting the sale of Plaintiff’s property to go forward. (Id.). Because Plaintiff
presents no new arguments that cause the Court to reach a different result here, the
Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report.
Having carefully considered Plaintiff’s Petition (Doc. 1-1), the underlying
Motions (Doc. 19; Doc 23; Doc. 45), related briefing (Doc. 22; Doc. 25; Doc. 26; Doc. 27;
Doc. 29; Doc. 35; Doc. 40; Doc. 47; Doc. 48), the Magistrate Judge’s Report (Doc. 49),
and the parties’ briefing in response to the Report (Doc. 50–Doc. 55) the Court
APPROVES the Magistrate Judge’s Report And Recommendation and ADOPTS it
as the Court’s opinion in this matter.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 23) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Gautreaux’s Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. 19) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants U.S. Bank and Onity’s
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 45) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Request for Oral Argument
(Doc. 51) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims against all Defendants
are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Final judgment shall be issued separately.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 23rd day,of January, 2026

JUDGE BRIAN A. zx
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11245610. Public record. Not legal advice.