Jackson v. WMC Mortgage, Corp. et al

Filing 54

ORDER adopting 52 Report and Recommendations re 41 Motion to Dismiss; granting 41 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 3/3/2014. (McCalla, Jon)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
OTIS JACKSON, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
WMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, et
al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:12-cv-02914-JPM-cgc

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT WMC
MORTGAGE, LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND
ORDER GRANTING WMC MORTGAGE, LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation on Defendant WMC Mortgage, LLC’s (“WMC”) Motion
to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment
(the “Report and Recommendation”), filed February 5, 2014.
No. 52.)

(ECF

In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge

recommends “that WMC’s Motion to Dismiss [(ECF No. 41)] be
GRANTED.”

(ECF No. 52 at 8 (footnote omitted).)

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2),
“[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the
recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific
written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

No objections to

the Report and Recommendation have been filed, and the time for

filing objections has expired.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2),

6(d), 72(b)(2).
“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record in order to accept the recommendation.”

Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(b) advisory committee notes; accord Higgins v. Shinseki,
No. 2:11-2728-JPM-dkv, 2013 WL 1966590, at *1 (W.D. Tenn.
May 10, 2013) (McCalla, J.).

On clear-error review of the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court hereby
ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 52) in its
entirety.
Accordingly, WMC’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 41) is
GRANTED1 and Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) as to WMC is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.2
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of March, 2014.

/s/ Jon P. McCalla
JON P. McCALLA
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

1

Because the Court grants WMC’s Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), it is unnecessary for the Court to examine WMC’s
alternative Motion for Summary Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56.
2
Having terminated WMC from this action, the Court finds that there are no
remaining Defendants against which Plaintiff has asserted claims. The case
is, therefore, adjudicated. The Court will enter a corresponding Judgment.

2