Vespi v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 37

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 13 , 34 , 29 , 18 ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, sdb)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION LEO VESPI, Plaintiff, File No. 1:12-CV-858 v. HON. ROBERT HOLMES BELL MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants. / ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On December 14, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Dkt. No. 18) be denied, and that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 13) be granted. (Dkt. No. 29, R&R.) Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R. (Dkt. No. 32.) Defendants filed a motion for leave to file an untimely response to Plaintiff’s objections. (Dkt. No. 34.) This Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which specific objection has been made, and may accept, reject, or modify any or all of the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). “[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 enable the district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.” Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff’s objections consist of nothing more than a general objection based on his bald assertions that the R&R “demonstrates an appalling lack of understanding of the issues and legal authority” or an intentional disregard of same, lacks substance, and reveals “obvious prejudice.” (Dkt. No. 32, Objs.) Plaintiff has not identified any defects in the Magistrate Judge’s application of the fraudulent joinder rule, or in his determination that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The Court is satisfied that the R&R accurately recites the facts and correctly applies the pertinent law. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R (Dkt. No. 32) are OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the December 14, 2012, R&R (Dkt. No. 29) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Dkt. No. 18) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 13) is GRANTED IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for leave to file a response to Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. No. 34) is DENIED AS MOOT. Date: February 4, 2013 /s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?