Karle v. Southwest Credit Systems et al

Filing 120

Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ORDER entered adopting Report and Recommendations dkt 115 . Based upon the thorough analysis presented in the Report and Recommendation, and noting there are no objections, the court, upon de novo review, hereby ADOPTS th e Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 115.) Based upon this, the summary judgment motions filed by Northeast and Credit Acceptance are hereby ALLOWED, (dkt 54 and 57) and Plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment (dkt 105) is hereby DENIED. (Pelegano, Theresa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
ALEXIS KARLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTHWEST CREDIT SYSTEMS,
NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE CO.,
DECA FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC,
EOS CCA, and CREDIT ACCEPTANCE,

Defendants,

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Civil Action No. 14-30058-MGM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION REGARDING CROSS-MOTIONS
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Dkt. Nos. 54, 57, 105, and 115)
August 25, 2015

MASTROIANNI, U.S.D.J.
Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson has recommended that the court allow the
motions for summary judgment filed by Northeast Utility Service Co. (“Northeast”) and Credit
Acceptance as well as deny Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 115.) In
particular, Magistrate Judge Robertson concluded that Plaintiff failed to raise genuine issues of
material fact in support of her claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.,
against Northeast, 1 her claims under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et
seq., against Northeast and Credit Acceptance, any claim under MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 93A
against Northeast, and her claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et

Magistrate Judge Robertson also explained that Plaintiff voluntarily withdrew at the hearing on the instant motions any
Fair Credit Reporting Act claim asserted against Credit Acceptance.

1

seq., against Credit Acceptance. (Dkt. Nos. 115.) Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Robertson
concluded that Northeast and Credit Acceptance are entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to all
of Plaintiff’s claims asserted against them. The Recommendation notified Plaintiff that, if she had
an objection, it would have to be filed within fourteen days. No objection has been filed. 2
Based upon the thorough analysis presented in the Report and Recommendation, and noting
there are no objections, the court, upon de novo review, hereby ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 115.) Based upon this, the summary judgment motions filed by
Northeast and Credit Acceptance are hereby ALLOWED, and Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary
judgment is hereby DENIED.
It is So Ordered.
_/s/ Mark G. Mastroianni________
MARK G. MASTROIANNI
United States District Judge

On July 8, 2015, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (an additional fourteen days) to object to
the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 119.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objection was due on July 21, 2015. (Id.)
Despite this extension, Plaintiff still has not filed an objection.
2

2