Lemke v. Barclays Bank Delaware

Filing 8

ORDER Adopting 7 Report and Recommendation, Granting 4 Motion to Dismiss, and Dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (Sandusky, K)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION ERIN S. LEMKE, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 14-cv-14449 Honorable Thomas L. Ludington Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE, Defendant. __________________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS, AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT On October 17, 2014, Plaintiff Erin Lemke filed a pro se Complaint in the 75th Judicial District Small Claims Court of Michigan against Defendant Barclays Bank Delaware. The case was removed to this Court on November 21, 2014. She alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Act on two separate occasions, resulting in her debt being invalidated. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Lemke’s Complaint, asserting that she cannot state a claim under the FDCPA because Defendant is not a “debt collector” under the act On March 31, 2015, Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris issued a report recommending that Defendant’s motion be granted and Lemke’s Complaint be dismissed because Defendant is not a “debt collector” under the FDCPA. Rep. & Rec. 1, ECF No. 7. Furthermore, liberally construing Lemke’s complaint, she also does not state a claim for relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Although the Magistrate Judge’s report explicitly stated that the parties to this action may object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report, neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed any objections. The election not to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the record. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, ECF No. 7, is ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 4, is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. s/Thomas L. Ludington THOMAS L. LUDINGTON United States District Judge Dated: May 28, 2015 PROOF OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on May 28, 2015. s/Karri Sandusky Karri Sandusky, Acting Case Manager -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?