Power House Temple et al v. City of Highland Park et al

Filing 23

ORDER (1) Overruling Plaintiff's 21 Objections to the Magistrate Judge's 20 Report and Recommendation, (2) Adopting the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Disposition, (3) Dismissing Plaintiffs Power House Temple and Jerry R. Massey from the Action Without Prejudice, (4) Granting Defendant Wayne County Treasurer's 13 Motion to Dismiss, and (5) Dismissing this Action. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
POWER HOUSE TEMPLE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 17-cv-12019
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #21), (2)
ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION,
(3) DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS POWER HOUSE TEMPLE AND JERRY R.
MASSEY FROM THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, (4) GRANTING
DEFENDANT WAYNE COUNTY TREASURER’S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF
#13), AND (5) DISMISSING THIS ACTION
This action arises from tax foreclosure proceedings against real property located in
Highland Park, Michigan. Plaintiffs Power House Temple, Jerry R. Massey, and Roderick
Edwards complain that Defendants City of Highland Park, Wayne County Treasurer, and
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems colluded to foreclose on the property without
fully complying with the statutory requirements and improperly recorded the foreclosure.
(See Complaint, ECF #1.)
The Wayne County Treasurer filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on July 26,
2017. (See ECF #13.)

The assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and

Recommendation in which she recommends that the Court dismiss this action (the “R&R”).
(See ECF #20.) The Magistrate Judge first concluded that the Court should dismiss any

claims by Plaintiffs Power House Temple and Jerry R. Massey because they are not
properly before the Court. (See R&R at 4-6, ECF #20 at Pg. ID 121-23.) The Magistrate
Judge noted that (1) Plaintiff Edwards is the only plaintiff who appeared in the action and
signed the Complaint and (2) Edwards, a non-lawyer, may not represent the interests of
Power House Temple or Massey. (See id.) The Magistrate Judge further determined that
any claims by Edwards are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and/or by res judicata.
(See id. at 6-9, Pg. ID 123-26.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge
informed the parties that if they wanted to seek review of her recommendation, they needed
to file specific objections with the Court within fourteen days. (See id. at 9-10, Pg. ID 12627.)
On November 8, 2017, Plaintiff Massey (but not either one of the other Plaintiffs)
filed timely objections to the R&R (the “Objections”). (See ECF #21.) Massey makes
three objections. None of the objections warrant rejection of the Magistrate Judge’s
proposed disposition.
Massey first contends that “Defendants [sic] motion to dismiss on grounds that
Plaintiff failed to state a claim in which relief can be granted should be denied in its
entirety” because Power House Temple had not received any notice regarding tax
assessments. (See Objections at 2-3, ECF #21 at Pg. ID 129-30). This objection does not
address the basis of the Magistrate’s Judge’s analysis or conclusion.
Massey next argues that the Complaint meets the pleading requirements of Rule
8(a)(2) because “the Plaintiffs set forth specific factual allegations” and “plead the
elements of the case.” (Id. at 4, Pg. ID 131). This objection fails because it (1) is simply a

conclusory assertion that the Complaint is sufficient without any supporting analysis and
(2) is not sufficiently specific. See Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995) (“[A]
general objection to a magistrate's report, which fails to specify the issues of contention,
does not satisfy the requirement that an objection be filed. The objections must be clear
enough to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.”). Just as importantly,
this objection does not address the basis of the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.
Finally, Massey contends that “[t]he [R&R] erroneously states that Plaintiff’s
RESPA and [sic] claims are time-barred.” (Objections at 4, ECF #21 at Pg. ID 131.) But
the R&R did not recommend dismissal on the ground that the claims are time-barred. Thus,
this objection fails.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (1) the Objections (ECF #21) are
OVERRULED; (2) the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition in the R&R is
ADOPTED; (3) Plaintiffs Power House Temple and Jerry R. Massey are DISMISSED
from this action without prejudice; (4) the Wayne County Treasurer’s Motion to Dismiss
(ECF #13) is GRANTED; and (5) this action is DISMISSED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 20, 2017
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on November 20, 2017, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]