Stinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC

Filing 46

ORDER ADOPTING 45 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DISMISSING 15 COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S 42 MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Chief Judge Sheryl H. Lipman on 8/29/2024. (shl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
MARK T. STINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC,
d/b/a MR. COOPER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:24-cv-02094-SHL-cgc

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DISMISSING
COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE, AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Charmiane Claxton’s Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”), entered on August 12, 2024, recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff Mark
Stinson’s pro se Second Amend[ed] Complaint for Specific Performance and Damages Based on
Breach of Contract, Misrepresentation, Fraud, Conversion, for Concealment or Fraud by
Suppression, and Forum Selection (ECF No. 15), for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(b). (ECF No. 45 at PageID 32–34.)
A magistrate judge may submit to a district court judge proposed findings of fact and
recommendations that assist in the determination of certain pretrial matters. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A)–(B). Parties can file objections to the proposed findings and recommendations
“[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A district court reviews de novo only those
proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law to which a party specifically objects; the rest are
reviewed for clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). “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.
The R&R was entered on August 12, 2024. (ECF No. 45.) More than fourteen days have
now passed, and Stinson has not filed any objections to the R&R. Since no objections have been
filed, the Court reviews the R&R in its entirety for clear error and finds no substantive errors in
the R&R’s reasoning. 1 There is no clear error in this analysis.
The R&R properly describes how Stinson failed to respond to Defendant’s motion to
dismiss and the Court’s show cause order. (See ECF No. 45 at PageID 32.) The R&R then
reasons through why this complaint should be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Rule
41(b). (Id. at PageID 33.)
Thus, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R and DISMISSES WITH
PREJUDICE Stinson’s complaint. Because the complaint has been dismissed, Defendant’s
motion to dismiss (ECF No. 42), is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 29th day of August, 2024.
s/ Sheryl H. Lipman
SHERYL H. LIPMAN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

While the caption is correct and the introduction includes the right Defendant—
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, d/b/a Mr. Cooper—the R&R’s conclusion incorrectly states the
Defendant’s name. (See ECF No. 45 at PageID 34.) The Court notes this typographical error for
the record.
2