Humphrey v. Citibank NA et al

Filing 29

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Michael P. Mills on 9/25/2013. (lpm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
DELTA DIVISION
RUBY JEAN HUMPHREY

PLAINTIFF

V.

CASE NO. 2:12CV148M-V

CITIBANK NA, CITI MORTGAGE, INC.,
and CITIGROUP, INC.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
This cause comes  before  the  court  on  defendant’s Motion to Dismiss  plaintiff’s  first 
amended complaint [22]. Upon due consideration of the file and records in this action and the
relevant law, including the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
dated July 2, 2013, the court is now prepared to rule.
Plaintiff, Ms. Humphrey, filed an Emergency Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Reinstate
Case [26] on July 23, 2013. In the Report and Recommendation, Judge Virden referred the
parties to Local Rule 72.2(D) for the applicable procedure in the event any party desired to file
objections to the findings and recommendations contained in her report. Further, Judge Virden
“warned that any such objections are required to be in writing and must be filed within fourteen 
(14) days of this date.” Ms. Humphrey did not file any type of objection until July 23, 2013, and
titled it an Emergency Motion to Vacate Dismissal.
The court notes Ms. Humphrey is proceeding in this action pro se but is not excused from
the  procedures  and  rules  of  this  court.  Plaintiff’s  motion,  if  construed  as  an  objection,  is 
untimely. If her motion is construed as a motion to vacate, it is due to be denied because there
has been no final judgment in this action, and plaintiff has failed to identify any grounds to
support a motion to vacate. The  plaintiff’s  objections  are  without merit and the Magistrate

Judge’s  Report and Recommendation should be approved and adopted as the opinion of the
court. It is, therefore ORDERED:
1.

That the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [25]

dated July 2, 2013, is hereby approved and adopted as the opinion of the court.
2.

Plaintiff’s  FHA  claim is DISMISSED with prejudice and her MCPA claim is

DISMISSED without prejudice.
Accordingly, a separate order shall be issued pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
25th
This the _____ day of September 2013.

_________________________________
MICHAEL P. MILLS
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

2