Pringle et al v. EMC Mortage Corporation et al

Filing 77

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, adopting 68 Report and Recommendations, granting 13 Motion to Dismiss filed by EMC Mortage Corporation, Wells Fargo Bank NA, granting 35 Motion to Dismiss filed by Fannie Mae, granting 36 Motion to Dismiss, filed by Freddie Mac, granting 37 Amended Motion to Dismiss filed by EMC Mortage Corporation, Wells Fargo Bank NA, granting 42 Motion to Dismiss filed by Bob Capes Realtors, finding as moot 12 Motion for Injunction filed by William C Pringle, Sr, Lisa Pringle, finding as moot 43 Motion to Sever filed by Bob Capes Realtors. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 09/10/09. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA A IK E N DIVISION W illia m C. Pringle, Sr. and Lisa Pringle, ) ) P l a i n t if f s , ) ) v. ) ) E M C Mortgage Corporation; Wells ) F a rg o Bank, N.A.; Fannie Mae; Freddie ) M a c ; and Bob Capes Realtors; ) ) D e f e n d a n ts . ) ________________________________ ) C /A No.: 3:08-4146-JFA-PJG

ORDER

T h i s matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's report and re c o m m e n d a tio n ("Report") made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and L o ca l Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.). T h e magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any p a rty may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound by the re c o m m e n d a tio n of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for t h e final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo d e te rm in a tio n of those portions of the report or specified findings or re c o m m e n d a tio n as to which an objection is made. However, the Court is not re q u ire d to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal c o n c lu s io n s of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the report and re c o m m e n d a tio n to which no objections are addressed. While the level of s c ru tin y entailed by the Court's review of the Report thus depends on whether o r not objections have been filed, in either case the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or r e c o m m e n d a tio n s . W a lla c e v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citatio n s omitted). 1

I.

P ro c ed u ral Posture

P la in tif f s William C. Pringle, Sr., and Lisa Pringle filed this action pro se on D e c e m b e r 29, 2008. The case was automatically referred to Magistrate Judge Paige J. G o ssett pursuant to Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e). T h e Magistrate Judge filed a detailed and comprehensive Report on July 28, 2009, recommending that plaintiffs' motion for default judgment against defendants Fannie Mae a n d Freddie Mac be denied and defendants' motions to dismiss be granted. Because d e f e n d a n t s Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both appeared and filed timely motions to dismiss, th e Magistrate Judge found entry of default judgment inappropriate. The Magistrate Judge a ls o recommended that all defendants' motions to dismiss be granted on the basis of lack of su b ject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), or in the alternative for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). T h e plaintiffs were informed of their right to file objections to the Report, which they f iled on August 10, 2009, and defendants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac each filed a reply to p la in tif f s ' objections on August 19, 2009. This matter is now ripe for review. II. S ta n d a rd of Review

A district court must make a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which s p e c if ic objections are filed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). However, making only general

o b je c tio n s "has the same effect as would a failure to object [and] mak[es] the initial reference to the magistrate useless." Howard v. Sec'y of Heath and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th

2

C ir. 1991). This is because "[a] district court [would] have to guess what arguments an o b je c tin g party depends on when reviewing a magistrate's report." Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F .2 d 1015, 1019 (7th Cir. 1988). Objections to wholly legal conclusions are similarly u n h elpf u l and do not compel de novo review. See Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44 (4th Cir. 1 9 8 2 ). Accordingly, de novo review is unnecessary without specific objections or where o b je c tio n s attack only legal conclusions. P la in tif f s submitted nine objections to the Report, each objection appears to either a tta c k a legal conclusion without further support, or assert facts immaterial to resolving the d is p u te at hand. Objections (2), (5), (7), and (8) attack the legal recommendations of the M a g is tra te Judge in a summary and conclusory manner and may be disregarded. Objections (3 ), (4), and (6) reassert facts in the record that are immaterial to any claim for relief p la in tif f s are requesting and are accordingly too general. Objection (1) merely asserts that f a c ts may be in dispute, which without more detail is insufficient to constitute a specific o b je c tio n . Objection (9) ostensibly asks the district court to not adopt the recommendations o f the Report and is not a proper objection. No specific objections to the report have been f ile d , but merely a request for relief. The court accepts the Report as filed. In light of the standard set out above, the court has reviewed the record, the law, the R e p o r t of the Magistrate Judge, together with plaintiff's objections thereto, and defendants' re p lie s. The court finds that defendants are entitled to have plaintiffs' claims against them d is m is s e d for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

3

III.

Conclusion

F o r the foregoing reasons, the court adopts in full the Report of the Magistrate, o v e rru le s plaintiffs' objections, denies plaintiffs' motion for entry of default judgment, and g r a n ts defendants' motions to dismiss. IT IS SO ORDERED.

September 10, 2009 C o lu m b ia , South Carolina

J o s e p h F. Anderson, Jr. U n ite d States District Judge

4