Pown v. Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. et al

Filing 25

ORDER adopting 21 Report and Recommendations, granting 14 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 20 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Sheryl H. Lipman on 04/10/2015. (Lipman, Sheryl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
GLADDIE B. POWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, E.A.
and CALIBER HOME LOANS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 14-cv-02741-SHL-dkv

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s “Report and Recommendation on Defendants’
Motions to Dismiss” (the “Report and Recommendation”), which was filed on February 18,
2014. (See ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the Report and Recommendation
as well as a “Motion to Dismiss Defendants [sic] Motions to Dismiss” on February 25, 2015.
(See ECF Nos. 22, 23.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s “Motion to Dismiss” as her response to
Defendant Washington Mutual Bank’s Motion to Dismiss; Plaintiff filed this response eight days
after the deadline and has not provided any explanation for this delay. Despite this failure, the
Court has reviewed the arguments in this motion and taken them into account in light of the
Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge recommended granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, and
Plaintiff objects to this recommendation. 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 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. Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation repeat
the words of the statutes at issue here, but do not provide adequate allegations or arguments to
establish a cognizable claim. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED and this case is
hereby DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 10th day of April, 2015.
s/ Sheryl H. Lipman
SHERYL H. LIPMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2