Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

White v. Federal Mortgages Association

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

June 22, 2018

ROBERT E. WHITE Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.

          Jolson Magistrate Judge

          OPINION & ORDER

          ALGENON L. MARBLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Objection (ECF No. 5) to the Magistrate Judge's March 9, 2018 Report and Recommendation (ECF. No. 4), recommending that the Court dismiss this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Upon independent review of this Court, and for the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Objections are hereby OVERRULED, and the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. This case is dismissed.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff filed a Complaint (ECF No. 1) with this Court on February 22, 2018, asserting a series of claims and naming twelve defendants. (ECF No. 1 at 1). Plaintiff begins the portion of the Complaint entitled “substantive allegations” by describing the “foreclosure crisis since mid-2007”. Plaintiff then cites a series of transactions that purportedly involve the Defendants. (Id. at 3-4). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated laws such as the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practice Act.

         Plaintiff recites the requirements of default judgment and asks this Court to enter “default judgment against Federal National Mortgage Association, et al., for violations of the CFPA and the (FDCPA).” (ECF No. 1 at 10). Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief as well as $30, 862, 268.88 for himself and his family. (ECF No. 1 at 19).

         The Magistrate Judge found this Complaint to be frivolous as it lacks an “arguable basis in law or in fact.” (ECF No. 4 at 5) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)) (internal quotations omitted). Furthermore, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff fails to state a claim against any Defendant even under a liberal reading of the Complaint. (Id.). Because Plaintiff's Complaint was both frivolous and failed to state a claim, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss this case.

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Plaintiff does not offer specific objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation throughout the Objection. Instead, as in the Complaint, Plaintiff lists a series of claims, largely comprising the recitation of legal standards. (EFC No. 5). The Objection does not address any of the Magistrate Judge's reasons for recommending that the case be dismissed pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P 8(a)(2) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). Instead, because no specific arguments within the Report and Recommendation are addressed by Plaintiff, it appears that Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation generally.

         As this Court has held, “[a] general objection to the entirety of [a] magistrate's report has the same effects as would failure to object.” Anderson v. County of Hamilton, 780 F.Supp.2d 635, 642 (S.D. Ohio 2011) (quoting Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)) (internal quotations omitted). Furthermore, there is no requirement for a district court to review aspects of a magistrate's report where a party has failed to make a specific objection. Id. (quoting Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985)). Plaintiff's complaint, however, is held to, “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011). Generally, when proceeding pro se, plaintiffs are held to more liberal standards in the evaluation of their complaints. The Court will therefore review the objection and make a de novo determination as directed under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

         III. ANALYSIS

         Although Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to “lower judicial access barriers to the indigent”, it also recognized that plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis lacked “an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive suits.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). To counter this possibility, Congress included subsection (e) as part of the statute. Article 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) provides, in relevant part:

(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.