TreDenick v. Sidney State Bank

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 7 ; signed by District Judge Paul L. Maloney (Judge Paul L. Maloney, cmc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
AARON A. TREDENICK,
Plaintiff,
-vSIDNEY STATE BANK,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:25-cv-139
Honorable Paul L. Maloney

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Aaron TreDenick asserts both federal and state law claims. Plaintiff filed this
lawsuit without the assistance of counsel and he has been granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. The Magistrate Judge reviewed the complaint and issued a report recommending
the Court dismiss the federal claims with prejudice and dismiss the state law claims without
prejudice (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff filed an objection (ECF No. 8).
After being served with a report and recommendation (R&R) issued by a magistrate
judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A district court judge
reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a
de novo review under the statute. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per
curiam).
The Magistrate Judge identifies problems for each of the purported violations of
federal law. Plaintiff does not specifically address the problems identified in the R&R with

his claim for bankruptcy fraud. Plaintiff also does not specifically address the problems
identified in the R&R with his RESPA claim.
The Magistrate Judge explains three reasons why Plaintiff’s Due Process claim must
fail: (1) to the extent Plaintiff’s claim arises from the foreclosure proceeding, Plaintiff received
notice and opportunity (due process) in that proceeding; (2) to the extent Plaintiff’s claim
arises from the outcome of the state-court action, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the claim;
and (3) to the extent Plaintiff’s claim rests on alleged fraud committed by Defendant in the
state-court proceeding, Plaintiff must pursue his remedies in the state courts.
Plaintiff does not challenge any of these conclusions. Rather, Plaintiff attempts to
explain and summarize the events giving rise to his Due Process claim. As examples, Plaintiff
contends he was never given notice of a June 5, 2018, default letter. Plaintiff blames
Nationwide Bank for failing to list creditors’ names on a settlement check. He asserts that
Sidney Bank gave him only 10 days to cure a default rather than 30 days. And, Plaintiff
argues that the state circuit court entered a judgment against him based on fraud. Plaintiff’s
objections do not address the deficiencies in his Due Process claim identified by the
Magistrate Judge.
Finally, Plaintiff suggests that he may need to amend his complaint. (ECF No. 8
PageID.86). The Court finds that any amendment would be futile. See Miller v. Calhoun

Cnty., 408 F.3d 803, 817 (6th Cir. 2005). As explained in the R&R, Plaintiff cannot state a
claim based on what occurred in the state-court proceedings or what occurred as a result of
the state-court proceedings.

2

The Magistrate Judge concludes that any appeal would not be taken in good faith,
which Plaintiff does not address. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that any appeal
would be futile and not take in good faith. The Court concludes that reasonable jurists would
not disagree with the manner in which the Court resolved Plaintiff’s claims.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 7).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date:

March 11, 2025

/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge

3