LNU et al v. Federal National Mortgage Association et al

Filing 31

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation for 29 Report and Recommendation, 10 Motion to Dismiss,,,,, filed by Potestivo and Associates, P.C., Federal National Mortgage Association Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION NANCY LNU, NANCY J. GARDNER, and DONALD M. GARDNER, Plaintiff, Case No. 15-12900 vs. HON. AVERN COHN FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants. __________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 29) AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (Docs. 10) AND DISMISSING CASE I. This is essentially a mortgage foreclosure case. In August of 2015, plaintiffs, who identify themselves as “Agent Nancy on behalf of Nancy J. Gardner and Don on behalf of Donald M. Gardner,” filed a pro se civil complaint concerning real property that was previously foreclosed on under Michigan law, sold at a Sheriff’s sale, and transferred to defendant Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae). The matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial proceedings. See Doc. 6. Defendants Fannie Mae and Positive & Associates filed a motion to dismiss, requesting that the complaint be dismissed and they be awarded costs and attorney fees under Rule 11. (Doc. 10). The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (MJRR), recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted but defendant’s request for costs and attorney fees be denied. (Doc. 29).1 II. Neither party has objected to the MJRR and the time for filing objections has passed. The failure to file objections to the MJRR waives any further right to appeal. Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to object to the MJRR releases the Court from its duty to independently review the motions. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). However, the Court has reviewed the MJRR and agrees with the magistrate judge’s analysis and conclusion. III. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the MJRR is ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The request for costs and attorney fees is DENIED. This case is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. S/Avern Cohn AVERN COHN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: September 16, 2016 Detroit, Michigan 1 The magistrate judge also recommends that plaintiff be enjoined from filing further actions without leave of court, citing plaintiff’s extensive litigation history in state and federal court challenging the foreclosure. See MJRR at p. 2-4. Although imposing prefiling restrictions on persons with a history of repetitive or vexatious litigation is permitted, see Feathers v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 141 F.3d 264, 269 (6th Cir. 1998), the Court declines to impose prefiling requirements at this time. However, plaintiff is on notice that any future litigation filed in this court regarding the foreclosure may result in the imposition of prefiling requirements. 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?