IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-11137

Summary Calendar

WANDA D. BINION,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

U.S. BANK, N.A., As Trustee for New Century Home Equity Loan Trust, 

Series 2002-A, Asset Backed Pass Through Certificates Series 2002-A,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:15-CV-160

Before KING, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Wanda Binion appeals the dismissal of her pro se complaint against U.S. 

Bank, N.A., as Trustee for New Century Home Equity Loan Trust Series 2002-

A, Asset Backed Pass Through Certificates, Series 2002-A (USB), that alleged 

claims of fraud and violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the 

Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and 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

October 26, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-11137 Document: 00514212110 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2017
No. 16-11137

2

Due Process Clause. This suit follows a state court summary judgment in favor 

of USB in a foreclosure proceeding. After Binion failed to object to the 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that the complaint be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim and as barred by res judicata and the 

Rooker-Feldman doctrine,1 the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s 

findings and conclusions as its own and entered a judgment of dismissal. 

Binion asserts also that her Seventh Amendment right to jury trial was 

infringed. We affirm the judgment. 

If a case is assigned to a magistrate judge without a party’s consent, as 

the instant case was, the party is entitled to file objections within 14 days after 

receiving a copy of the magistrate judge’s recommendation and to have those 

objections reviewed de novo by the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 

FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). If the party was advised of this requirement and the 

consequences of noncompliance, as Binion was, the party’s failure to file timely 

objections bars her, except for plain error, from challenging on appeal the 

magistrate judge’s factual findings and legal conclusions that the district court 

has accepted. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-

29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by § 636(b)(1).

The plain error standard requires that Binion show that there is an 

error, that the error is clear or obvious, i.e., not “subject to reasonable dispute,” 

and that the error affects the party’s substantial rights. Puckett v. United 

States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If she makes all these showings, we have

discretion to correct the forfeited error if the error “seriously affect[s] the 

fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (alteration 

in original) (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160 (1936)).

 

1 See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. 

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).

 Case: 16-11137 Document: 00514212110 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2017
No. 16-11137

3

Ordinarily, a contention unaccompanied by “any precedent directly 

supporting” it forms no basis for concluding that an alleged error is plain. 

United States v. Miller, 406 F.3d 323, 330 (5th Cir. 2005). 

Binion fails to show that it is clear under the law of this circuit that her 

Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial and her related right to due process 

were violated by the state court’s grant of summary judgment to USB or by the 

district court’s dismissal of the federal complaint. See Miller, 406 F.3d at 330; 

see also Haase v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 748 F.3d 624, 631 n.5 (5th 

Cir. 2014); Barrett v. Indep. Order of Foresters, 625 F.2d 73, 75 (5th Cir. 1980)

(per curiam). Consequently, further plain error analysis is unnecessary. See

Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.

We reject also the argument that the underlying state court judgment 

was procured by fraud and that consequently neither res judicata nor the 

Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars Binion’s federal complaint or an amendment to 

the complaint to add USB’s loan servicing agent as a defendant. Binion’s 

allegations are insufficient to show that the state court judgment was procured 

by fraud. See Martins v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 722 F.3d 249, 252-

54 (5th Cir. 2013). As Binion fails to show clear or obvious error, further plain 

error analysis is unnecessary. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135; Miller, 406 F.3d 

at 330.

Binion’s attempt to incorporate by reference arguments raised in the 

district court is unsuccessful. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th 

Cir. 1993). As Binion has not shown that the district court plainly erred by 

dismissing her claims based upon res judicata and the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine, we do not reach her arguments related to the merits of her claims. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-11137 Document: 00514212110 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/26/2017