Rajapakse v. Credit Acceptance Corporation

Filing 26

ORDER (1) Adopting Magistrate Judge's 24 Recommended Disposition, (2) Granting Defendant's 12 Motion to Compel Arbitration, (3) Terminating Plaintiff's 15 and 22 Motions for Injunctive Relief and for Summary Judgment as Moot, and (4) Dismissing 1 Complaint Without Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SAMANTHA RAJAPAKSE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-cv-13144
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORP.,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER (1) ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDED
DISPOSITION (ECF #24), (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
COMPEL ARBITRATION (ECF #12), (3) TERMINATING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (ECF #15) AND FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (ECF #22) AS MOOT, AND (4) DISMISSING COMPLAINT
(ECF #1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE
In this action, pro se Plaintiff Samantha Rajapakse alleges that Defendant
Credit Acceptance Corporation (“CAC”) violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. (See Compl., ECF #1.) On October
16, 2016, CAC filed a motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration
agreement that it entered into with Rajapakse (the “Arbitration Motion”). (See ECF
#12.) Rajapakse has also filed two motions, one seeking injunctive relief (the
“Injunction Motion”) (see ECF #15) and one seeking summary judgment (the
“Summary Judgment Motion”) (see ECF #22).

1

On July 28, 2017, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation in which she addressed all three motions (the “R&R”). (See ECF
#24) The Magistrate Judge concluded that all of Rajapakse’s claims were “subject
to final and binding arbitration.” (Id. at Pg. ID 180.) She therefore recommended
that the Court (1) grant the Arbitration Motion, (2) dismiss this action without
prejudice so that the parties could resolve their dispute in binding arbitration, and
(3) terminate the Injunction Motion and the Summary Judgment Motion as moot.
(See id.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge instructed Rajapakse
that if she wanted to seek review of the recommendation, she needed to file specific
written objections with the Court within fourteen days. (See id. at Pg. ID 180-81.)
Rajapakse has not filed any objections to the R&R. Instead, on August 7,
2017, she filed a document tilted “Plaintiff Submission of Evidence to Support Her
Motion for Summary Judgment With Newly Attach Evidence.” (See ECF #25.) This
document appears to provide additional details about how CAC’s actions have
affected Rajapakse’s credit score. (See id.) It does not include any objections to the
R&R, does not reference the R&R in any way, and does not even attempt to address
the R&R’s conclusion that Rajapakse must arbitrate her dispute with CAC.
Rajapakse’s failure to file specific objections to the R&R waives her right to
appeal the Court’s ruling. See Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932
F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d

2

1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, her failure to object to the R&R releases the
Court from its duty to independently review the matter. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 149 (1985).
Accordingly, because Rajapakse has not filed any objections to the R&R
(ECF #24), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommended
disposition of this matter is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Arbitration Motion (ECF #12) is
GRANTED, Rajapakse’s Complaint (ECF #1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, and the Injunction Motion (ECF #15) and Summary Judgment
Motion (ECF #22) are TERMINATED AS MOOT.

Dated: August 23, 2017

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on August 23, 2017, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3