Biszczanik v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC

Filing 37

ORDER Overruling 35 Objections, Adopting 34 Report and Recommendation and Granting 16 Motion to Dismiss, filed by FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, d/b/a Fannie Mae, Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MAREK BISZCZANIK,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-11957

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, and
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION,
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge
Anthony Patti that this court dismiss the complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. #34.) Plaintiff filed timely objections
(Dkt. #35), and Defendants have filed a response (Dkt. #36). The court will overrule
Plaintiff’s objections, adopt the report and recommendation, and dismiss the complaint
for the reasons stated below and in the well-reasoned R&R.
The filing of timely objections to an R&R requires the court to “make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendations to
which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447
U.S. 667 (1980); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). This de novo
review requires the court to re-examine all of the relevant evidence previously reviewed
by the magistrate judge in order to determine whether the recommendation should be
accepted, rejected, or modified in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

“The filing of objections provides the district court with the opportunity to consider
the specific contentions of the parties and to correct any errors immediately,” Walters,
638 F.2d at 950, enabling the court “to focus attention on those issues—factual and
legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute,” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147
(1985). As a result, “‘[o]nly those specific objections to the magistrate’s report made to
the district court will be preserved for appellate review; making some objections but
failing to raise others will not preserve all the objections a party may have.’” McClanahan
v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 474 F.3d 830, 837 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Smith v. Detroit Fed’n
of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987)).
In the instant case, Plaintiff’s “objections” appear to consist nearly entirely of
material copied and pasted verbatim from Plaintiff’s response brief in opposition to
Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Compare Dkt. #19, with Dkt. #35.) Confronted with a
similar circumstance, the court in Shade v. Commissioner of Social Security, explained:
Each written objection presented pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72(b) must be “specific” and address the “proposed findings and
recommendations.” This court expects that each such objection will be numbered,
identify a proposed finding or conclusion, and explain why and how the magistrate
judge’s analysis is incorrect. In order for this court to apply meaningful de novo
review, it is insufficient for the objecting party to simply incorporate by reference
earlier pleadings or reproduce an earlier unsuccessful motion for dismissal or
judgment (or response to the other party’s dispositive motion). Insufficient
objections to a magistrate judge’s analysis will ordinarily be treated by the court as
an unavailing general objection.
No. 14-12629, 2015 WL 5693665, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 29, 2015) (citations omitted).
This court also reached the same conclusion in Wallace v. Commissioner of Social
Security, where the objections were “simply Parts 3 and 4 of the Argument section from

2

her Motion for Summary Judgment . . . copied, pasted, and rebranded as objections to
the R&R.” No. 15-11839, 2016 WL 4409062, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 19, 2016) (“Because
Plaintiff raises no specific objections to [the] R&R but merely repeats her brief word for
word, Plaintiff has waived any matter therein that might otherwise be cast as an
objection.”).
Here as well the court will interpret Plaintiff’s filing as constituting fundamentally
insufficient “general” objections. “However, there is some authority that a district court is
required to review the R&R for clear error.” Hill v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No.
13-CV-15257, 2014 WL 6686789, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 26, 2014) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.
72). Having reviewed the meticulously researched and cogently reasoned R&R, the
court finds no clear error. The court agrees with the result reached as well as the stated
reasoning. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. #35) are OVERRULED. The
magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #34) is ADOPTED in its entirety
and incorporated by reference.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. #16) is
GRANTED.
s/Robert H. Cleland
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated:

July 10, 2017

S:\CLELAND\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\16­11957.BISZCZANIK.ADOPTR&R.BSS.DOCX

3

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on
this date, July 10, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

S:\CLELAND\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\16­11957.BISZCZANIK.ADOPTR&R.BSS.DOCX

4