1

PS-051 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-2808

___________

RAYMOND S. CRIMONE; 

REBECCA A. CRIMONE,

 Appellants

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC; MCCABE, WEISBERG, & 

CONWAY, P.C.; ANDREW L. MARKOWITZ, Esquire;

MARC S. WEISBERG, Esquire; EKKER, KUSTER, MCCALL 

& EPSTEIN LLP; THOMAS R. DOBSON; SANDELANDS EYET; 

MATTHEW T. EYET, Esquire; DOES 1-10

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 2-14-cv-00808)

District Judge: Honorable Terrence F. McVerry

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

January 19, 2016

Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 10, 2016)

___________

OPINION*

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

___________

PER CURIAM

Raymond and Rebecca Crimone are the defendants in a state-court mortgage 

foreclosure proceeding that apparently remains pending in Mercer County, Pennsylvania. 

That proceeding was initiated by Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (“Nationstar”), which alleges 

that it is the assignee of the Crimones’ mortgage. The Crimones are contesting the 

validity of the assignment to Nationstar and Nationstar’s authority to foreclose.

In addition to raising those challenges in state court, the Crimones filed and then 

amended the federal complaint at issue here. The Crimones named as defendants 

Nationstar, the lawyers who have represented Nationstar in the foreclosure proceeding, 

and the judge who is presiding over that proceeding. The Crimones allege that the 

Nationstar defendants have violated their rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices 

Act (“FDCPA”) and various provisions of state law by attempting to collect a fraudulent 

or unenforceable debt. The Crimones further allege that the presiding judge has violated 

their constitutional rights by proceeding in the absence of jurisdiction1and by altering or 

destroying unspecified items of evidence.

Various defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 12(b)(6), and the District Court referred the motions to a Magistrate Judge. The 

 

1

In particular, the Crimones allege that the presiding judge lacks jurisdiction because 

Nationstar lacks standing to collect on the mortgage and because they have been unable 

to locate evidence confirming that the judge took an oath of office.
3

Magistrate Judge recommended abstaining under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), 

to the limited extent that the Crimones’ amended complaint could be read to seek an 

injunction against the state-court proceeding or to request the removal of the presiding 

judge. The Magistrate Judge further concluded that the Crimones’ claims against the 

judge are barred by Eleventh Amendment and judicial immunity. As for the Crimones’ 

FDCPA claims, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the Crimones’ largely conclusory 

allegations failed to state a plausible violation of the FDCPA and that further amendment 

of their complaint would be futile. In light of these conclusions, the Magistrate Judge 

recommended dismissing the Crimones’ federal claims and declining to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over their state-law claims. The District Court adopted that 

recommendation and dismissed the Crimones’ amended complaint. The Crimones filed a 

motion for reconsideration, which the District Court denied. They now appeal pro se.2

Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ filings on appeal, we will 

affirm primarily for the reasons adequately explained by the Magistrate Judge. The 

Crimones’ filings on appeal focus largely on undisputed issues that are irrelevant to the 

District Court’s decision, such as their status as “consumers” and Nationstar’s status as a 

 

2 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the 

District Court’s dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), and we will affirm if the 

complaint fails to allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.” Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212, 220 (3d Cir. 2011) (quotation 

marks omitted). We review the District Court’s denial of reconsideration and its 

disallowance of amendment for abuse of discretion except to the extent that they raise 

issues of law, which we review de novo. See id.
4

“debt collector,” and otherwise largely repeat their conclusory allegations of wrongdoing. 

Those filings neither raise any arguable error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis nor 

suggest that the Crimones could state a valid claim if given another opportunity to amend 

their complaint.

We note that the Magistrate Judge, in analyzing the issue of abstention, applied 

law pre-dating Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 134 S. Ct. 584 (2013). We need 

not address the District Court’s decision to abstain in part, however, because the 

Crimones have not challenged that decision. Even if we were to reach the issue and 

conclude that the Magistrate Judge’s abstention analysis was erroneous (which we do not 

decide), we would affirm on the alternative ground that the Crimones stated no plausible 

basis for a federal court to enjoin the state-court foreclosure proceeding or to remove the 

presiding judge. If the Crimones’ allegations in that regard are true—and we by no 

means suggest that they are—then those allegations potentially state grounds for relief on 

any state-court appeal. We otherwise express no opinion on that issue or on the merits of 

any issue in the foreclosure proceeding.

For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. The 

Crimones’ motion for leave to file a supplemental reply brief is granted, and we have 

considered their supplemental reply brief in reaching our decision.3

 

3 The Crimones argue that the appellees’ briefs on appeal constitute additional evidence 

in support of their claims. They assert that they intend to file a motion with the District 

Court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) on that basis and a motion to stay this appeal pending 

the District Court’s ruling. The Crimones, however, have not actually filed a Rule 60(b) 
5

 

motion with the District Court or a motion to stay this appeal. Our notation of that fact 

should not be read as a suggestion that they file a Rule 60(b) motion now.