Coleman v. Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. et al

Filing 23

ORDER adopting 21 Report and Recommendations; granting 14 Motion to Dismiss; granting 16 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Sheryl H. Lipman on 1/22/2015. (Lipman, Sheryl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
BERNARED EUGENE COLEMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC.; LIME
FINANCIAL SERVICES, LTD; ASSURED
ESCROW AND TITLE; SAXON
MORTGAGE; OCWEN LOAN
SERVICING, LLC; and DEUTSCH BANK
NATIONAL TRUST,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:14-cv-02141-SHL-cgc

Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 21) on
Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 14, 16). The Magistrate Judge filed her Report and
Recommendations on October 16, 2014, and Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the Report and
Recommendation on October 29, 2014. (See ECF No. 22.)
District courts must conduct a de novo review of the parts of a magistrate judge's report
and recommendation to which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, after
conducting a de novo review, a district court is not required to articulate all of the reasons for
which it rejects a party's objections. Tuggle v. Seabold, 806 F.2d 87, 92 (6th Cir. 1986). This
Court has conducted a de novo review by reviewing the record before the Magistrate Judge in
light of Plaintiff's objections and hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its
entirety. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED on res judicata grounds because
Plaintiff has already litigated nearly identical claims against these identical parties. See Bernard

Coleman v. Lime Financial Services, LTD, et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-2282-JTF-tmp (W.D. Tenn.).
As the Magistrate Judge correctly noted, it is not completely clear from Coleman’s complaint if
the exact issues presented in this complaint were litigated in the earlier case, however, the issues
are so similar that if they were not litigated, they should have been, and therefore they are barred
by res judicata. See Bragg v. Flint Bd. of Educ., 570 F.3d 775, 777 (6th Cir. 2009).
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of January, 2015.
/s/ Sheryl H. Lipman
SHERYL H. LIPMAN
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

2