Porter v. GMAC Homecomings Financials Network, et al., No. 2:2010cv02858 - Document 73 (W.D. Tenn. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER granting 58 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 59 Motion to Enforce Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendations 62 ; denying 70 Motion to Dismiss; adopting Report and Recommendations re 71 ; denying 72 Motion. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 04-30-2018. (Mays, Samuel)

Download PDF
y by permitting the assignment of districtcourt duties to magistrate judges. 237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. See United States v. Curtis, 2001) (citing Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 869-70 (1989)); see also Baker v. Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003). A district court has the authority to “designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition, by a judge of the court, of any motion.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The district court has appellate jurisdiction over any decisions the magistrate judge issues pursuant to a referral. U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 28 “A district judge must de- termine de novo any part of a Magistrate Judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 The district court is not required to review -- under a de novo or any other standard -- “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Thomas v. Arn, 474 The district court should adopt the find- 4 ings and rulings of the Magistrate Judge to which no specific objection is filed. Id.; United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 950 (6th Cir. 1981.) Plaintiff has not objected to Report I or Report II,2 and the deadline to do so under Local Rule 72.1 has passed. so 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). See al- Adoption of Report I and Report II’s recommendations is warranted. See Arn, 474 U.S. at 150-51. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Report I and Report II are ADOPTED. Defendant Genworth Mortgage Insurance Corporation’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and Defendant GMAC Mortgage, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss are GRANTED. 2 On March 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Postpone the Implementation of Any Approved Recommendation on GMAC Mortgage LLC’s Motion to Enforce Bankruptcy Order. (ECF No. 72.) The motion asks the Court to: [P]ostpone implementation of any approved court recommendations on GMAC Mortgage LLC’s Motion to Enforce Bankruptcy Order until the Plaintiff has achieved the final court order from the United States Bankruptcy Court in Southern District of New York on Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion For Leave to File Proof of Motion For Leave to File Proof Of Claim Out of Time and Motion to Allow Claimant to Continue to Litigate Debtor in the District Court for Non-Dischargeability Determination. (Id. at 751-52.) The motion appears to refer to Report II, but the motion is not “clear enough to enable the district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.” Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995). To the extent Plaintiff’s motion seeks to object to Report II, Plaintiff’s objection is overruled. See Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (“[T]he district court need not provide de novo review where the objections are ‘[f]rivolous, conclusive or general.’” (internal quotations omitted)). 5 So ordered this 30th day of April, 2018. /s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr. ____ SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.