Cochran v. JP Morgan Chase, N.A.

Filing 80

ORDER: Having thoroughly reviewed the record in this case and the applicable law in accordance with Rule 72(b), the Court will accept the R & R. Accordingly, the Court hereby rules as follows: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 77) i s hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED; (2) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 60) is hereby GRANTED; (3) Plaintiff's RESPA and TILA claims are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and (4) Plaintiff's remaining state law claims are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 10/23/12. DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(afs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
BOBBY COCHRAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE, N.A.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:10-cv-0753
Judge Sharp
Magistrate Judge Griffin

ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Bobby Cochran filed this civil action in forma pauperis against
Defendant JP Morgan Chase, N.A. on August 9, 2010, wherein he asserted numerous civil
causes of action against Defendant, related to a “consumer contract for the refinance of a primary
residence located at 7176 Chester Road[,] Fairview[,] TN 37062.” (Docket Entry No. 1 at 1).
Plaintiff subsequently filed an Amended Complaint, clarifying his claims and allegations against
Defendant. Plaintiff contends that federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331
because he raises claims under the Truth-in-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq. (“TILA”)
and under the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq. (“RESPA”).
Plaintiff requests that the Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over
his state law claims of fraud, violation of Tenn. Code. Ann. § 66-5-106, breach of contract,
breach of contract of good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied contract, and breach of
fiduciary duty. See (Docket Entry No. 33).
On February 13, 2012, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry
No. 60), to which Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. (Docket Entry No. 72).

1

The Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Docket Entry
No. 77) in this case on September 19, 20121, concluding that summary judgment should be
granted for Defendant on Plaintiff’s federal question claims. Further, “[u]pon the dismissal of
the federal question claims, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 no longer exists, and the Court
should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims in
accordance with the discretion provided to the Court in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).” (Id. at 4-5).
Therefore, recommending that the motion for summary judgment “be GRANTED as to the
Plaintiff’s RESPA and TILA claims and that these claims be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”
and the “remaining state law claims be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” (Id. at 9). No
objections have been filed to the R & R.
Where no objections are made to the R & R, “[t]he 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). Having thoroughly reviewed the
record in this case and the applicable law in accordance with Rule 72(b), the Court will accept
the R & R.
Accordingly, the Court hereby rules as follows:
(1) The Report and Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 77) is hereby ACCEPTED and
APPROVED;
(2) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 60) is hereby
GRANTED;
(3) Plaintiff’s RESPA and TILA claims are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
and

1

Plaintiff received the R & R on October 1, 2012 via certified mail. See (Docket Entry No. 79).
2

(4) Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
The Clerk is directed to enter Judgment in a separate document in accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
It is SO ORDERED.

_________________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3