
    Richard DEAN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, doing business as Homesteps; Kim Haynes; Latter and Blum Incorporated Realtors; Freddie Mac; Virginia McCoy; Marjorie Schroeder; Stephanie McConnell, Defendants—Appellees. Kristie Aylett, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, doing business as Homesteps; Kim Haynes; Latter and Blum Incorporated Realtors; Freddie Mac; Virginia McCoy; Marjorie Schroeder; Stephanie McConnell, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 07-60143
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 26, 2007.
    Henry Payson Pate, III, Law Offices of Henry P. Pate, Pascagoula, MS, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    
      Dorrance Dee Aultman, Jr., Aultman Tyner Ruffin Bell & Swetman, Gulfport, MS, Kenton W. Hambrick, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., McLean, VA, Patrick Russell Buchanan, W.F. Hornsby, III, Brown Buchanan Sessoms, Biloxi, MS, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs-Appellants Richard Dean and Kristie Aylett appeal from the judgment of the district court, signed December 20, 2006, granting summary judgment motions of the defendants to dismiss the actions of Dean and Aylett with prejudice. We have reviewed with care the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and have considered with equal care the memorandum opinion and order granting motions for summary judgment likewise signed by the district court on December 20, 2006. Based on our consideration of the material facts, which are not in genuine dispute, and the law applicable to the actions filed by Plaintiffs-Appellants herein, we affirm judgment of the district court dismissing all claims with prejudice. In light of our ruling, we deny as moot the motion of Defendants-Appellees Latter & Blum, Virginia McCoy, Marjorie Schroeder, and Stephanie McConnell to be dismissed as defendants in this case.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     