Hardy v. Bank of America
ORDER Adopting 22 Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Plaintiff's Complaints with Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 13-11022
Case No. 13-11426
Paul D. Borman
United States District Judge
BANK OF AMERICA, et al.,
Mona K. Majzoub
United States Magistrate Judge
OPINION AND ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE MAJZOUB’S AUGUST 26,
2013 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 22)
AND (2) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINTS WITH PREJUDICE
In an Order dated April 18, 2013, this Court consolidated this case with Case No. 13-11426
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), granted Plaintiff’s applications to proceed in
forma pauperis and referred the consolidated action to Magistrate Judge Mona Majzoub for all
pretrial matters and for initial screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). On August 26,
2013, Magistrate Judge Majzoub issued her Report and Recommendation that Plaintiff’s complaints
in these consolidated cases be dismissed sua sponte under § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state any
plausible claim for relief against any party, for lacking any arguable basis in law and for being
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, and there being no timely objections
from either party under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich L.R. 72.1(d), the Court ADOPTS the
Report and Recommendation, and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaints in these consolidated actions
with prejudice pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: September 16, 2013
CERTIFICATE 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 September 16, 2013.
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?