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)

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-