Wingo, Jr. v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 34

ORDER Adopting 32 Report and Recommendation and Denying 23 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (KWin)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION JERRY WINGO, JR., Plaintiff, v. Case No. 17-cv-11275 Honorable Thomas L. Ludington Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., et al, Defendants. __________________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS On April 20, 2017, Plaintiff Jerry Wingo, Jr., filed a complaint in the 21st District Court of Wayne County. ECF No. In the complaint, Wingo named Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Trans Union, LLC, and North Central Area Credit Union as Defendants. Wingo alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. On April 24, 2017, Defendants removed the suit to the Southern Division of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. ECF No. 1. Defendant North Central Area Credit Union then filed a counterclaim against Wingo, alleging that Wingo failed to make payments on a loan and then did not produce the snowmobile collateral after defaulting. ECF No. 15. On May 9, 2017, the suit was reassigned from the Southern Division to the Northern Division because the Northern Division is the proper venue. ECF No. 17. Subsequently, all pretrial matters were referred to Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris. ECF No. 20. On May 26, 2017, Wingo filed a motion to dismiss North Central Area Credit Union’s counter claim. ECF No. 23. On August 9, 2017, Judge Morris issued a report recommending that Wingo’s motion to dismiss be denied. Although Wingo asserted that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the counterclaim, Judge Morris explained that the counterclaim was covered by the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction because it was related to the same fact-pattern as Plaintiff’s (federal) claims. 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. Because this Court has supplemental jurisdiction to review the counterclaim, Wingo’s motion to dismiss will be denied. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, ECF No. 32, is ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 23, is DENIED. Dated: August 30, 2017 s/Thomas L. Ludington THOMAS L. LUDINGTON United States District Judge 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 August 30, 2017. s/Kelly Winslow KELLY WINSLOW, 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?