Cannon v. Home Source Detroit et al
OPINION AND ORDER Adopting the 19 Report and Recommendation Issued July 24, 2013, Granting Defendants' 9 Motion to Dismiss, Overruling Plaintiff's 20 Objections, Denying Plaintiff's 5 Motion for Injunctive Relief and Dismissing the Case. Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Goltz, D)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Civil Case No. 13-11577
HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH
HOME SOURCE DETROIT, et al.,
OPINION AND ORDER
(1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ISSUED JULY 24, 2013
(Dkt. 19), (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (Dkt. 9), (3)
OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (Dkt. 20), (4) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Dkt. 5), and (5) DISMISSING THE CASE
Plaintiff Ronald Cannon, proceeding pro se, alleges that Defendants Home Service
Detroit has fraudulently obtained title to property of the estate of Plaintiff’s father. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants are illegally trying to evict him from his father’s home where he is
“lawfully residing” and asserts claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, civil extortion,
discrimination and unfair housing practices. See Am. Compl. (Dkt. 4).
After the matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives for all pretrial
proceedings, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Dkt. 9). Magistrate Judge Komives issued a
report and recommendation (R&R, Dkt. 19), recommending that Defendant’s motion be granted
and the case dismissed. Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R, Pl.’s Objs. (Dkt. 20), to which
Defendants have filed a response. Defs.’ Resp. (Dkt. 21). The Court reviews de novo those
portions of the R&R to which a specific objection has been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). For the reasons that follow, the Court will accept the recommendation in
the R&R, grant Defendant’s motion, and overrule Plaintiff’s objections.
Plaintiff advances three objections. The Court addresses each of Plaintiff’s objections in
A. First Objection
In his first objection, Plaintiff argues that the R&R “erroneously states” that Plaintiff’s
claim arises from Defendants’ attempts to force him to purchase or vacate the property of which
he is in possession. Pl.’s Objs. at 2. Plaintiff points to his amended complaint and argues that
his allegation states that he resides in the home because it “belongs to the estate” of Plaintiff’s
father. Id. Plaintiff’s objection lacks merit.
Upon de novo review, Plaintiff alleges in Count I that the home in which he resides
belongs to the estate of his father. Am. Compl. ¶ 10. A few paragraphs later, within the same
count, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants sent him “a letter stating that if Plaintiff has not contacted
the office of Home Source Detroit by February 21, 2013, that he has until March 13, 2013 to
vacate the property, or sign a month to month lease and pay $400 per month until Plaintiff finds
another place.” Am. Compl. ¶ 14. Additionally, Plaintiff attached a copy of the letter he alleges
Defendants sent to him with their demands at the address of the property. Id. at Ex. A. The
R&R’s characterization that Plaintiff possesses the property, notwithstanding who owns the
property, was accurate.
Accordingly, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s first objection.
B. Plaintiff’s Second Objection
In Plaintiff’s second objection, Plaintiff argues that the R&R contains a “palpable error”
by stating that “‘Plaintiff claims that the property rightly belongs to him.’” Pl.’s Objs. at 2
(quoting R&R at 2). Plaintiff directs the Court to paragraphs in his complaint that indicate that
probate court proceedings have occurred regarding the property and that Plaintiff may be able to
quiet title in the property. Id. (citing Am. Compl. ¶¶ 12, 30).
Upon de novo review, Plaintiff’s objection lacks merit. First, it is unclear to the Court
what precisely Plaintiff is objecting to; Plaintiff states that the R&R contains a “palpable defect”
but fails to develop his argument. This alone provides a sufficient basis to overrule his objection.
See Rivet v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 316 F. App’x 440, 449 (6th Cir. 2009) (refusing to
address “arguments that . . . are unsupported or undeveloped.”). Second, assuming that Plaintiff
takes issue with the R&R’s factual characterization of Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court finds no
such “defect.” Plaintiff quoted selectively from the R&R, which stated in full that “Plaintiff
claims that the property rightly belongs to him, is the subject of ongoing state court probate
proceedings, and that defendants know or should know that Home Source’s title is clouded.”
R&R at 2. This line in the R&R accurately summarizes Plaintiff’s amended complaint, wherein
he alleges that he notified Defendants that “title was clouded due to a civil case arising from a
probate matter objecting to the conservatorship over the estate of the real property” at issue in
this case. Am. Compl. ¶ 11.
Accordingly, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s second objection.
C. Plaintiff’s Third Objection
In Plaintiff’s third objection, Plaintiff argues that his amended complaint has met the
pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2).
Pl.’s Objs. at 3-5.
Specifically, Plaintiff argues that he adequately met the pleading standards for his claim of
negligent misrepresentation. Id. at 4.
The Court overrules this objection, but does not reach the issue of whether Plaintiff’s
amended complaint adequately pleads negligent misrepresentation because the R&R
recommended dismissal on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to state a claim under the Fair
Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et seq., the linchpin for jurisdiction in this case. R&R at
5-10. Plaintiff failed to object to this portion of the R&R. Furthermore, Plaintiff failed to object
to the recommendation in the R&R that the Court decline supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s state-law claims and motion for injunctive relief. Id. at 10-15. Plaintiff has waived
further right to appeal over these portions of the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148
(1985) (explaining that “the same rationale that prevents a party from raising an issue before a
circuit court of appeals that was not raised before the district court applies here.”) (quotation
marks and brackets omitted); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373-1374 (6th
Cir. 1987) (failure to file objection to R&R “waived subsequent review of the matter”); Cephas
v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 1078 (2d Cir. 2003) (“As a rule, a party’s failure to object to any purported
error or omission in a magistrate judge’s report waives further judicial review of the point.”);
Lardie v. Birkett, 221 F. Supp. 2d 806, 807 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (“As to the parts of the report and
recommendation to which no party has objected, the Court need not conduct a review by any
Because Plaintiff failed to raise any objection to the R&R’s recommendation that the
amended complaint failed to state a claim under the FHA and that the Court should decline
supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, Plaintiff has waived any such objection to
the R&R. Furthermore, this Court has reviewed these portions of the R&R for clear error. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Committee Note Subdivision (b) (“When no timely objection is
filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in
order to accept the recommendation.”). On the face of the record, the Court finds no clear error
and adopts the recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s third objection.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. 20), grants
Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 9), declines to extend supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s state-law claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and civil extortion, and denies
Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Dkt. 5).
Dated: November 21, 2013
s/Mark A. Goldsmith
MARK A. GOLDSMITH
United States District Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
and any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class
U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on November 21, 2013.
s/Deborah J. Goltz
DEBORAH J. GOLTZ
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?