Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40615/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40615-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bank of America, N.A.
Appellee
Select Portfolio Servicing, Incorporated
Appellee
Al Wininger
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40615

Summary Calendar

AL WININGER, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, 

INCORPORATED, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Texas

U.S.D.C. No. 4:14-cv-00556-ALM

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Al Wininger (“Wininger”) appeals from judgments entered by the district 

court, Judge Amos L. Mazzant presiding, which granted both Bank of America, 

N.A.’s and Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.’s motions to dismiss under Rule 

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and denied Wininger’s motion 

for leave to file a second amended complaint. After a thorough review of the 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 4, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40615 Document: 00513259071 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2015
No. 15-40615

2

record, briefs on appeal, and the rulings of the district court, we conclude that 

the judgment of the district court should be affirmed. The district court

properly granted the dismissals due to Wininger’s failure to allege facts that 

would make the claims plausible. Additionally, the district court correctly held 

that Wininger’s claims against Select Portfolio Servicing were barred by res 

judicata. See United States v. Davenport, 484 F.3d 321, 326 (5th Cir. 2007). 

The district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying Wininger’s motion 

for leave to file a second amended complaint. Among other factors, Wininger 

had sufficient prior opportunities to amend or supplement the facts alleged in

his complaint and a second amended complaint would have been futile. See 

Smith v. EMC Corp., 393 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2004). Therefore, we affirm 

the decisions of the district court to dismiss Wininger’s claims with prejudice 

and deny his motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-40615 Document: 00513259071 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2015