Khadija et al v. Fannie Mae et al

Filing 15

OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 13 Final Report and Recommendation and granting the Defendants' 2 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 12/21/2012. (anc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
AMZIL KHADIJA and IMANE
ABOULHOUDA,
Plaintiffs,
v.

1:12-cv-2519-WSD

FANNIE MAE AKA FEDERAL
MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION and
CHASE HOME FINANCIAL, LLC,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman’s
Final Report and Recommendation (“Final R&R”) [13] on Federal Mortgage
Association (“Fannie Mae”) and Chase Home Finance, LLC’s (“JPMorgan,”
collectively “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss [2].
I.

BACKGROUND1
On June 12, 2012, Amzil Khadija and Imane Aboulhouda (“Plaintiffs”) filed

their Complaint against Defendants in the Superior Court of Fulton County [1.1]
seeking damages based on Defendants’ foreclosure upon real property located at
6853 South Expressway, Jonesboro, Georgia. (R&R at 2; Compl. at 1).
1

The parties have not objected to the facts set out in the R&R, and finding no plain
error, the Court adopts them.

On July 20, 2012, Defendants removed the action to this Court [1]. (Notice
of Removal at 7).
On July 27, 2012, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss [2] and Motion
to Stay Scheduling and Discovery Deadlines (“Motion to Stay”) [4].
On August 22, 2012, Magistrate Judge Baverman granted in part and denied
in part Defendants’ Motion to Stay and ordered the parties to file their initial
disclosures within fourteen (14) days.
On September 18, 2012, after Plaintiffs failed to timely submit their initial
disclosures, Magistrate Judge Baverman issued an order requiring Plaintiffs to
show cause why their Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to comply
with a lawful order of the Court. (Order of Sept. 18, 2012, at 1).
On September 20, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their initial disclosures, a response to
the show cause order, and explained their reasons for not timely submitting their
initial disclosures [10, 11]. The Court accepted Plaintiffs’ explanation and allowed
the action to proceed.
On November 30, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued his Final R&R [13] and
recommended that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be granted with prejudice.
(Final R&R at 28). No objections to the Final R&R have been filed.

2

II.

DISCUSSION
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and

recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v.
Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 459 U.S. 1112
(1983). Because no objections to the Final R&R have been filed, the Court must
conduct a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093,
1095 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied 464 U.S. 1050 (1984).
The Court has reviewed the findings and recommendations in the Final R&R
and concluded plain error was not committed in reaching them.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman’s

Final Report and Recommendation [13] is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [2] is
GRANTED.

3

SO ORDERED this 21st day of December, 2012.

_________________________________________

WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4