Khadija et al v. Fannie Mae et al, No. 1:2012cv02519 - Document 15 (N.D. Ga. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 13 Final Report and Recommendation and granting the Defendants' 2 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 12/21/2012. (anc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION AMZIL KHADIJA and IMANE ABOULHOUDA, Plaintiffs, v. 1:12-cv-2519-WSD FANNIE MAE AKA FEDERAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION and CHASE HOME FINANCIAL, LLC, Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman s Final Report and Recommendation ( Final R&R ) [13] on Federal Mortgage Association ( Fannie Mae ) and Chase Home Finance, LLC s ( JPMorgan, collectively Defendants ) Motion to Dismiss [2]. I. BACKGROUND1 On June 12, 2012, Amzil Khadija and Imane Aboulhouda ( Plaintiffs ) filed their Complaint against Defendants in the Superior Court of Fulton County [1.1] seeking damages based on Defendants foreclosure upon real property located at 6853 South Expressway, Jonesboro, Georgia. (R&R at 2; Compl. at 1). 1 The parties have not objected to the facts set out in the R&R, and finding no plain error, the Court adopts them. On July 20, 2012, Defendants removed the action to this Court [1]. (Notice of Removal at 7). On July 27, 2012, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss [2] and Motion to Stay Scheduling and Discovery Deadlines ( Motion to Stay ) [4]. On August 22, 2012, Magistrate Judge Baverman granted in part and denied in part Defendants Motion to Stay and ordered the parties to file their initial disclosures within fourteen (14) days. On September 18, 2012, after Plaintiffs failed to timely submit their initial disclosures, Magistrate Judge Baverman issued an order requiring Plaintiffs to show cause why their Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a lawful order of the Court. (Order of Sept. 18, 2012, at 1). On September 20, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their initial disclosures, a response to the show cause order, and explained their reasons for not timely submitting their initial disclosures [10, 11]. The Court accepted Plaintiffs explanation and allowed the action to proceed. On November 30, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued his Final R&R [13] and recommended that Defendants Motion to Dismiss be granted with prejudice. (Final R&R at 28). No objections to the Final R&R have been filed. 2 II. DISCUSSION After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). Because no objections to the Final R&R have been filed, the Court must conduct a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied 464 U.S. 1050 (1984). The Court has reviewed the findings and recommendations in the Final R&R and concluded plain error was not committed in reaching them. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman s Final Report and Recommendation [13] is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Dismiss [2] is GRANTED. 3 SO ORDERED this 21st day of December, 2012. _________________________________________ WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4
]]>
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.
