govinfo:USCOURTS-kyed-5_25-cv-00348-2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 
CENTRAL DIVISION AT LEXINGTON 
 
EARL J. RAYFORD, CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-CV-348-KKC 
Plaintiff,  
V. OPINION and ORDER 
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A, et al.,  
Defendants. 
*** *** *** 
This matter is before the Court on multiple filings submitted by pro se Plaintiff Earl 
J. Rayford on May 26, 2026: (1) an Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 
Recommendation (R. 36); (2) a Motion in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (R. 37); 
and (3) an ex parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (R. 38). For the reasons set 
forth below, each Motion will be denied. 
I. BACKGROUND 
A brief recitation of the procedural history is necessary to place Rayford’s filings in 
context. Rayford initiated this action on September 26, 2025. (R. 1.) His Complaint alleg ed 
that mortgage payments were misapplied. (Id.) He asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 
1985(2), 1985(3), and 1986; 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242; as well as state -law claims for fraud, 
mail fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and abuse of process. (Id.) 
On November 19, 2025, Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint. (R. 14.) The 
matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins (R. 7), who issued a Report and 
Recommendation recommending dismissal. (R. 25.) Rayford filed objections (R. 27), which the 
Court carefully considered before overruling them and adopting the Report and 
Recommendation in full. (R. 29.) 
Case: 5:25-cv-00348-KKC-EBA     Doc #: 39     Filed: 05/29/26     Page: 1 of 4 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
2 
 
Following the Court’s April 10, 2026, Order adopting the Report and 
Recommendation, Rayford filed a “Motion to Vacate Judgment and Emergency Motion for 
Temporary Restraining Order.” (R. 33.) The Court denied that Motion, finding that Rayford’s 
arguments were “conclusory and unsupported by specific facts.” (R. 35 at 5.) 
II. ANALYSIS 
Rayford’s current Objection and Motions continue a pattern of untimely, repetitive, 
and unsupported arguments.  
A. Objection to Report and Recommendation (R. 36) 
Rayford’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is both 
procedurally improper and substantively deficient. 
First, the Objection is untimely. The Report and Recommendation clearly advised that 
“[p]articularized objections … must be filed within fourteen days … or further appeal is 
waived.” (R. 25 at 7.) The Report and Recommendation was entered on February 27, 2026. 
The deadline to object expired more than two months before the present filing. By failing to 
comply with this deadline, Rayford waived his right to further objection. See United States v. 
Campbell, 261 F.3d 628, 632 (6th Cir. 2001); Thomas v. Arn , 728 F.2d 813, 815 (6th Cir. 
1984); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 
Second, the Objection is duplicative. Rayford previously filed objections to the same 
Report and Recommendation. (R. 27.) The Court thoroughly considered and rejected those 
arguments. (R. 29.) The present Objection does not raise new arguments or identify any 
intervening law or factual development; instead, it reasserts positions that have already been 
addressed and resolved. The Court will not revisit issues that have been fully decided. 
For both reasons, the Objection is overruled. 
B. Motion in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (R. 37) 
Rayford’s “Motion in Opposition” is likewise untimely and procedurally improper. 
Case: 5:25-cv-00348-KKC-EBA     Doc #: 39     Filed: 05/29/26     Page: 2 of 4 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
3 
 
Local Rule 7.1(c) requires that a response to a motion be filed within twenty-one days 
of service. Even so, Magistrate Judge Atkins afforded Rayford an extended one-month 
deadline to respond. (R. 15.) That deadline expired on December 19, 2025. Rayford did not 
respond within that period. 
Instead, nearly five months after the deadline , and after the Court had already 
adopted the Report and Recommendation dismissing his claims , Rayford filed the present 
“opposition.” This opposition Motion is denied as untimely.  
Moreover, the Court notes that  despite Rayford’s failure to respond, the Magistrate 
Judge nevertheless addressed the substance of Rayford’s claims in the Report and 
Recommendation. Rayford’s belated submission fails to provide a basis to revisit the Court’s 
prior ruling. mAccordingly, the Motion is denied. 
C. Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (R. 38) 
Rayford’s Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order fares no better. Rayford 
provides no basis for why the Motion is ex parte. Because the Motion is substantially similar 
to the one previously filed in the open record (see R. 33), the Court will address it here.  
The Court has already considered and denied an identical request for emergency 
injunctive relief. (Id.; R. 35.) In doing so, the Court explained that Rayford’s allegations were 
conclusory and unsupported by specific facts. (R. 35 at 5.) The present Motion suffers from 
the same deficiencies. It offers no new factual allegations, no intervening change in 
circumstances, and no meaningful legal analysis that would justify reconsideration.  
Repeated requests for the same extraordinary relief, unsupported by new evidence 
or argument, do not warrant further consideration. Rayford’s Motion is denied. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Rayford’s filings lack merit and reflect a continued failure to comply with procedural 
rules and Court-imposed deadlines. The Court has afforded Rayford multiple opportunities to 
Case: 5:25-cv-00348-KKC-EBA     Doc #: 39     Filed: 05/29/26     Page: 3 of 4 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
4 
p
resent his arguments and has considered them fully. It will not permit the continued filing 
of untimely, repetitive, and unsubstantiated motions. 
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 
1. Plaintiff’s Objection (R. 36) is OVERRULED.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion in Opposition (R. 37) is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (R. 38) is DENIED.
This 29th day of May, 2026. 
May 29, 2026
Case: 5:25-cv-00348-KKC-EBA     Doc #: 39     Filed: 05/29/26     Page: 4 of 4 - Page
ID#: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight