Morton v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. et al

Filing 9

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 8 ; this case is dismissed without prejudice ; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAVID GLENN MORTON,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00295
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., et al.,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Carmody’s Report and Recommendation in this
matter (ECF No. 7) and Plaintiff Morton’s objection to the Report and Recommendation (entitled
“Demand for Summary Judgment”) (ECF No. 8). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
where, as here, a party has objected to portions of a Report and Recommendation, “[t]he district
judge . . . has a duty to reject the magistrate judge’s recommendation unless, on de novo
reconsideration, he or she finds it justified.” 12 WRIGHT, MILLER, & MARCUS, FEDERAL PRACTICE
AND PROCEDURE §

3070.2, at 381 (2d ed. 1997). Specifically, the Rules provide that:

The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district
judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition;
receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge
with instructions.
FED R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review in these circumstances requires at least a review of the
evidence before the Magistrate Judge. Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981).
The Court has reviewed de novo the claims and evidence presented to the Magistrate Judge; the
Report and Recommendation itself; and Plaintiff's objections. After its review, the Court finds that
Magistrate Judge Carmody’s Report and Recommendation is factually sound and legally correct.

The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of serving
summonses and complaint on defendants. In his objection entitled “Demand for Summary
Judgment,” Mr. Morton fails to address his failure to serve defendants in this case. The Report and
Recommendation carefully, thoroughly, and accurately addresses Plaintiff’s lack of service.
Nothing in Plaintiff’s objection changes the fundamental analysis. The Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed, for the very reasons the
Report and Recommendation delineates.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 7) is approved and adopted as the opinion of the Court.
This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

Dated:

September 20, 2016

/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2