Summary
finding defendant cannot remove foreclosure action from state court when party argued the mortgagee lacked a legal interest in the property and violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692
Summary of this case from Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp. v. BrownOpinion
Case No. 1:09-cv-38.
April 6, 2009
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed March 16, 2009 (Doc. 15).
Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). As of the date of this Order, no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation have been filed.
Having reviewed this matter de novo pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, we find the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation correct.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. Plaintiff's amended complaint is sua sponte DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Defendant's motions to dismiss are DENIED as MOOT. Plaintiff's "motion for emergence (sic) expediated (sic) stay pending motion order granting plaintiff motion for permanent injunction" is DENIED.
This Court certifies that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore DENIES petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See Fed.R.App.P. 24(a); Kincade v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949, 952 (6th Cir. 1997).
This action is closed.