Rajapakse v. Credit Acceptance Corporation et al
Filing
65
ORDER (1) Overruling Plaintiff's 58 Objections to Magistrate Judge's 57 Report and Recommendation, (2) Adopting Report and Recommendation's Recommended Disposition, and (3) Denying Plaintiff's 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 25 , 26 , 27 , and 28 MOTIONS for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SAMANTHA RAJAPAKSE,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 17-cv-12970
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
v.
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORP.,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (ECF #58)
TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
(ECF #57), (2) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION’S
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION, AND (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
(ECF ## 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 25, 26, 27, AND 28)
In this action, pro se Plaintiff Samantha Rajapakse alleges that Defendant
Credit Acceptance Corporation (“CAC”) and numerous individual Defendants
violated several federal statutes, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, when Defendants attempted to collect an alleged
debt related to her purchase of a vehicle. (See Compl., ECF #1.) Rajapakse has filed
numerous motions seeking a preliminary injunction against the Defendants. (See
ECF ## 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 25, 26, 27, and 28.) She has also filed three separate
motions for summary judgment. (See ECF ## 9, 12, and 55.)
1
On April 17, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation in which she recommended that the Court deny all of Rajapakse’s
preliminary junction motions (the “R&R”). (See ECF #57.) The Magistrate Judge
concluded that Rajapakse “had not met her burden of proof to support the
extraordinary remedy of injunctive relief.” (Id. at Pg. ID 496.) The Magistrate Judge
further recommended that the Court require Rajapakse to withdraw two of her
pending summary judgment motions because the Court’s Local Rules only allow
parties to file one summary judgment motion without leave of court. (See id. at 3
n.4, Pg. ID 487.)
Rajapakse filed timely objections to the R&R on April 23, 2018. (See ECF
#58.)
I
When a party objects to portions of a Magistrate Judge’s report and
recommendation, the Court reviews those portions de novo. See Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(3); Lyons v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 351 F.Supp.2d 659, 661 (E.D. Mich. 2004).
The Court has no duty to conduct an independent review of the portions of the R&R
to which the parties did not object. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
“An ‘objection’ that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a
magistrate’s suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented
before, is not an ‘objection’ as that term is used in this context.” Aldrich v. Bock,
2
327 F.Supp.2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004). Moreover, “[t]he filing of vague,
general, or conclsuory objections does not meet the requirement of specific
objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to object.” Zimmerman v. Cason,
354 Fed. App’x 228, 230 (6th Cir. 2009). Indeed, “[a] general objection to the
entirety of the magistrate’s report has the same effects as would failure to object.
The district court’s attention is not focused on any specific issues for review, thereby
making the initial reference to the magistrate useless ... The duplication of time and
effort wastes judicial resources rather than saving them, and runs contrary to the
purposes of the Magistrates Act.” Id. (quoting Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human
Serv., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 2001)).
II
Rajapakse begins her objections by arguing that the assigned Magistrate Judge
was biased against her. (See Objections, ECF #58 at Pg. ID 509-11.) Rajapakse
insists that the Magistrate Judge issued the R&R as “retaliation for Plaintiff
demanding the District Michigan Court to provide [sic] her the same equal protection
as the defendants in the whole including Credit Acceptance Corporation.”
(Objections, ECF #58 at Pg. ID 510.)
These objections do not identify any particular flaw with the R&R and appear
only to “state a disagreement with a magistrate’s suggested resolution,” which is not
a valid objection. Aldrich, 327 F.Supp.2d at 747 (adopting report and
3
recommendation and overruling objections that did “not object to the magistrate
judge’s recommendation with any specificity”). More importantly, Rajapakse’s
claim that the Magistrate Judge was “biased” against her is baseless. The Magistrate
Judge carefully considered Rajapakse’s claims and arguments, and she then
thoroughly and appropriately explained in the R&R why Rajapakse was not entitled
to injunctive relief.
In the next section of the objections, Rajapakse lists ten questions related to
the conduct of CAC and the Magistrate Judge. (See Objections, ECF #58 at Pg. ID
511-12.) The questions are not objections, and they do not provide any basis on
which to conclude that the Magistrate Judge committed error in the R&R.
Rajapakse next spends three pages appearing to summarize the R&R in
lettered bullet points. (See id. at Pg. ID 512-15.) To the extent that Rajapakse
identifies any disagreements with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions in this section
of her objections, Rajapakse does not attempt to explain how the Magistrate Judge
erred. These objections are therefore insufficient because they are “vague, general,
or conclusory.” Zimmerman, 354 Fed. App’x at 230.
Rajapakse then lists thirty numbered “supported facts of the case.”
(Objections, ECF #58 at Pg. ID 515-18.) These “supported facts” do nothing more
than summarize Rajapakse’s allegations against CAC and the procedural history of
this case. This section does not identify any specific errors in the R&R.
4
Rajapakse thereafter lists eight grievances with CAC and the Magistrate
Judge. (See id. at Pg. ID 518-51.) Most of Rajapakse’s complaints in this section do
not appear to relate to the R&R or the legal analysis included in the R&R. And while
a few of these grievances do take issue with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions in
the R&R, Rajapakse has not shown how the Magistrate Judge erred or how she is
likely to prevail on the merits of her claims such that a preliminary injunction is
warranted here.
Finally, Rajapakse concludes her objections by arguing that the Magistrate
Judge violated her rights as a pro se litigant. (See id. at Pg. ID 521-23.) The Court
disagrees. The Magistrate Judge expressly recognized in the R&R that Rajapakse
was appearing pro se, and the Magistrate Judge applied “the less stringent standard
afforded pro se litigants” when reviewing Rajapakse’s filings. (R&R, ECF #57 at
Pg. ID 497-98.) As noted above, the Court finds no basis to conclude that the
Magistrate Judge discriminated in any way against Rajapakse based on her status as
a pro se litigant or otherwise.
III
For all of the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Rajapakse’s objections to the R&R (ECF #58) are OVERRULED and the
Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition in the R&R (ECF #57) is ADOPTED.
5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rajapakse’s motions for preliminary
injunction (ECF ## 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 25, 26, 27, and 28) are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by no later than July 22, 2018, Rajapakse
shall file a written notice with the Court withdrawing two of her three currentlypending summary judgment motions (ECF ## 9, 12, and 55). If Rajapakse fails to
file such a notice with the Court by July 22, 2018, the Court will dismiss all three
motions without prejudice.
Dated: May 30, 2018
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 May 30, 2018, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
(810) 341-9764
6
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?