### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 20007 Summary Calendar

BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as successor by merger to LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee for Certificate holders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I L.L.C., Asset

- Backed Certificates Series 2007

- HE1,
Pla intiff

- Appellee

v. SHAUNE S. STAUFFER,
Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:14

- CV

- 2765

Before KING, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * Roughly six years after Shaune Stauffer defaulted on her home mortgage, Bank of America, N.A., brought a diversity action against her to foreclose on the house. After Stau f fer answered, Bank of America moved for

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 27, 2018 Ly le W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-20007 Document: 00514530571 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2018No. 18

- 20007

2 summary judgment, claiming its entitlement to judicial foreclosure as a matter of law. Stauffer defended, asserting Bank of America’s foreclosure claim was time

- barred. She also asserted , among other affirmative defenses , defenses of failure to mitigate damages , estoppel, and waiver. The district court granted Bank of America’s summary judgment motion and denied all of Stauffer’s defenses. Stauffer now appeals, claiming that fact issues necessitate a trial on her affirmative defen ses of failure to mitigate, estoppel, and waiver

. (She does not contest that Bank of America has established the necessary elements of its foreclosure claim and does not re

- urge her statute of limitations defense

. ) We review grants of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court. United States v. Caremark, Inc. , 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir. 2011). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, s ummary judgment on a defense is appropriate “ if t he movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The party moving for summary judgment

— here Bank of America

— may discharge its burden “ by pointing out that the record contains no support for the non

- moving party ’ s claim , ” Stahl v. Novartis Pharm. Corp. , 283 F.3d 254, 263 (5th Cir. 2002) , as it so did below

. This shifts the burden to the non

- movant , who cannot “rest upon mere allegations” in the pleading s, but must “ identify specific evidence in the record and

. . . articulate the precise manner in which that evidence supports his or her claim. ” Ragas v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co. , 136 F.3d 455, 458 (5th Cir. 1998)

. In this case , Sta uffer failed to meet her Rule 56 burden before the district court

. The sum total of her summary judgment briefing below on her three current defenses was a three

- sentence paragraph with no citations to evidence or caselaw. Stauffer did attach an affidavit to her summary judgment m otion, but she failed to “articulate” precisely how the affidavit supported her defenses. Case: 18-20007 Document: 00514530571 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/27/2018No. 18

- 20007

3 See id. Her only claim now is that the district court should have pieced together the relevant assertions in her affidavit and c onsidered unraised arguments that woul d allow her defenses to survive summary judgment

. We will not impose that burden upon the district court or take it up ourselves. See United States v. Scroggins , 599 F.3d 433, 446

- 48 (5th Cir. 2010) (holding that failure to adequately brief an argument to the district court forfeits the argument). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRM ED

. Case: 18-20007 Document: 00514530571 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/27/2018