Kremer v. Webador.com et al

Filing 30

ORDER: Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and considered Plaintiff's objections, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's objections are without merit, and the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 26 ) should be adopted and approved. Accordingly, Defendant Stripe, Inc.'s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 8 ) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Stipe, Inc. are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to effect service of process. Additionally, Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief and motion for entry of default (Doc. No. 9 ) against Defendant Webador.com are DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 3/7/2025. (xc: Pro se party by regular mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(sb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
MAXWELL KREMER,
Plaintiff,
v.
WEBADOR.COM, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 2:24-cv-00028
JUDGE CAMPBELL
MAGISTRATE JUDGE NEWBERN

ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report (Doc. No. 26), recommending
that Defendant Stripe, Inc.’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 8) be granted and Plaintiff’s claims
against Stripe, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff has not effected service of
process. In the alternative, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Stripe, Inc.’s motion to dismiss
and compel arbitration be granted and Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings against
Defendant Stripe, Inc. should be terminated as moot. The Magistrate Judge further recommends
that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief and motion for entry of default (Doc. No. 9) against
Defendant Webador.com be denied. Plaintiff filed an objection and supporting memorandum
(Doc. Nos. 28, 29).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.02, a district court reviews de novo any
portion of a report and recommendation to which a specific objection is made. United States v.
Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001). General or conclusory objections are insufficient. See
Zimmerman v. Cason, 354 F. Appx. 228, 230 (6th Cir. 2009). Thus, “only those specific objections
to the magistrate’s report made to the district court will be preserved for appellate review.” Id.
(quoting Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987)). In conducting

the review, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Plaintiff generally objects to the Report and Recommendation as “lacking scrutiny of
justice” and specifically objects to the statements in the Report that: “Webador has not yet
appeared” and “Kremer threatened to sue Stripe….” as “shameful” and “disrespectful.” (Doc. No.
28 at 1-2). Plaintiff’s supporting memorandum cites to the federal criminal code for wire fraud and
submits that Defendants committed a crime. (Doc. No. 29 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1341)). Plaintiff’s
foregoing objections fail to identify any specific factual or legal errors on the part of the Magistrate
Judge in making her determination. Objections which do not identify an error are meritless. See
Howard v. Sec. of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff also appears to object to the Magistrate Judge’s determination that he is required
to effect service of process on Defendants, arguing that he served Defendants with process while
the action was still in state court. (Doc. No. 29 at 2 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 81)). This objection
simply restates the argument that Plaintiff previously made in his motion for injunctive relief and
opposition to Defendant Stripe, Inc.’s motion to dismiss, which the Magistrate Judge already
considered. (See Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 26 at 8 (quoting Doc. No. 9 at PageID #
268)). As such, Plaintiff’s objection does not provide a basis to reject or modify the Report and
Recommendation. See VanDiver v. Martin, 304 F. Supp. 2d 934, 937 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (“An
‘objection’ that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate's suggested
resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an ‘objection’ as that term
is used in this context.”).
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and considered Plaintiff’s objections,
the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit, and the Report and

2

Recommendation (Doc. No. 26) should be adopted and approved. Accordingly, Defendant Stripe,
Inc.’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 8) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant
Stipe, Inc. are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to effect service of process.
Additionally, Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief and motion for entry of default (Doc. No. 9)
against Defendant Webador.com are DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
___________________________________
WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3