Johnson Chambers v. Michigan First Credit Union et al

Filing 24

ORDER overruling 22 Objections, adopting 20 , 21 Reports and Recommendations, granting in part 5 , 15 Motions to dismiss and remand, and remanding case to Wayne County Circuit Court. Signed by District Judge Shalina D. Kumar. (DPer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
YOLANDA JOHNSON
CHAMBERS, Individually and as
Personal Representative of the
Case No. 23-10730
Estate of ROBERT M.
Honorable Shalina D. Kumar
CHAMBERS, deceased,
Magistrate Judge Kimberly G. Altman
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHIGAN FIRST CREDIT
UNION et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (ECF NO. 22),
ADOPTING REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF NOS. 20, 21),
GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO
REMAND (ECF NOS. 5, 15)
I.

Introduction
Pro se plaintiff Yolanda Johnson Chambers (Chambers), individually

and as personal representative of the Estate of Robert M. Chambers, filed
this action against Michigan First Credit Union, Faith Hollowell, and several
other defendants, alleging a foreclosure of her home violated various
federal and state laws. ECF No. 1-1. This case was referred to the
magistrate judge for all pretrial matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). ECF No.
10.
Page 1 of 6

The magistrate judge ordered Chambers to show cause as to why the
claims against Hollowell should not be dismissed. ECF No. 18. Chambers
filed a response that failed to satisfy the order to show cause (ECF No. 19);
the magistrate judge accordingly issued a Report and Recommendation
(R&R), recommending that Hollowell be dismissed without prejudice for
lack of service. ECF No. 20. Chambers filed no objections. Therefore, the
Court adopts the R&R and enters it as the findings and conclusions of the
Court.
Additionally, certain defendants filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5),
with which all other defendants concur (ECF No. 14), and Chambers filed a
motion to remand (ECF No. 15). The magistrate judge issued a second
R&R, which recommends granting in part each motion, resulting in
dismissal of the federal law claims and remanding the remaining claims to
state court. ECF No. 21. Chambers timely objected, and defendants
responded. ECF Nos. 22, 23.
II.

Standard of Review
When a party files objections to an R&R on a dispositive matter, the

Court “make[s] a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court, however, “is not required to
Page 2 of 6

articulate all of the reasons it rejects a party’s objections.” Thomas v.
Halter, 131 F. Supp. 2d 942, 944 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (citations omitted). A
party’s failure to file objections to certain conclusions of the R&R waives
any further right to appeal on those issues. See Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of
Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the
failure to object to certain conclusions in the R&R releases the Court from
its duty to independently review those issues. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 149 (1985). Absent “compelling reasons,” arguments or issues that
were not presented to the magistrate may not be presented in objections to
the R&R. Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895, 902 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000)
(citing United States v. Waters, 158 F.3d 933, 936 (6th Cir. 1998)).
Moreover, objections must be clear so that the district court can
discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious. In sum,
the objections must be clear and specific enough that the court
can squarely address them on the merits. And, when objections
are merely perfunctory responses rehashing the same
arguments set forth in the original petition, reviewing courts
should review a Report and Recommendation for clear error.
Carroll v. Lamour, 2021 WL 1207359, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31,
2021) (internal citations, quotations, and marks omitted).
III.

Analysis
In her first objection, Chambers argues that the magistrate judge

erred in concluding that her Fair Housing Act (FHA) claim is time-barred
Page 3 of 6

based on the 2011 acquisition of her home. Chambers appears to argue
that her FHA claim is not time-barred because her FHA claim rests on the
defendants’ actions, which occurred after 2018.
Defendants actions after 2018 have nothing to do with Chambers’
FHA claim. Chambers claimed that defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 3604
of the FHA, but as the magistrate judge noted, § 3604 “relates to acquiring
a home.” Eva v. Midwest Nat’l Mortg. Bank, 143 F. Supp. 2d 862, 886 (N.D.
Ohio 2001). Chambers’ only allegation about acquiring her home is that her
late-husband acquired the mortgage on the home in 2011. See ECF No. 11, PageID.10. Because the subject property was purchased in 2011,
Chambers’ FHA claim, brought in 2023, is barred by the FHA’s two-year
statute of limitations. See 42 U.S.C.§ 3613(1)(A); ECF No. 1-1.
Accordingly, the Court overrules Chambers’ first objection.
Chambers’ other objections are improper. She asserts as part of her
first and second objections that she is entitled to provide evidence for her
claims and their dismissal would be premature; she also asserts as her
third and fourth objections that “the Court cannot rule out Congress’s
intent.” ECF No. 22, PageID.350. These objections fail to object to a
specific conclusion in the R&R, present new issues not presented to the
magistrate judge, and in any case are too conclusory for the Court to
Page 4 of 6

address them on the merits. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149; Murr, 200 F.3d
at 902 n.1; Carroll, 2021 WL 1207359, at *2. The R&R fairly assesses the
issues in this matter to recommend that, rather than dismiss all claims, the
Court decline supplemental jurisdiction over and remand Chambers’ state
law claims, thereby affording Chambers’ another chance to be heard in
state court. Accordingly, the Court overrules the remaining part of
Chambers’ first objection, as well as her second, third, and fourth
objections.
IV.

Conclusion
The Court OVERRULES Chambers’ objections (ECF No. 22) and

ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s R&Rs as the findings and conclusions of
the Court. ECF Nos. 20, 21.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that defendant Hollowell is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to
dismiss (ECF No. 5) and the motion to remand (ECF No. 15) are
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Chambers’ federal law claims
(Counts I, II, III, and IV) are DISMISSED. Her state law claims (Counts V
and VI) and requests for injunctive and declaratory relief (Count VII) are
REMANDED to the Wayne County Circuit Court.

Page 5 of 6

s/ Shalina D. Kumar
SHALINA D. KUMAR
United States District Judge

Dated: March 27, 2024

Page 6 of 6