From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gayle v. Arbor Mortg. Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Feb 26, 2013
Case No. 12-cv-12489 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 26, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 12-cv-12489

02-26-2013

CLEVELAND M. GAYLE, JR., Plaintiff, v. ARBOR MORTGAGE CORPORATION, IVAN KAUFMAN, CITIMORTGAGE, INC., SANJIV DAS, PAUL INCE, DANIEL HOFFMAN, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, R.K. ARNOLD, BILL HUFFMAN, POTESTIVO ASSOCIATES, CHANTELLE R. NEUMANN, SCHNELKER, RASSI & MCCONNELL, PLC, JASON S. SCHNELKER, D.WADE MCCONNELL, DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC, KYLE R. DUFRANE, NASSEEM S. RAMIN, MICHAELWOODS, et al., Defendants.


HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS


Magistrate Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk


ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT DEFENDANTS'

MOTIONS TO DISMISS BE DENIED AS MOOT (Docs. #13 and #14)

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court are Defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff filed this pro se complaint alleging that he was fraudulently induced into his mortgage loan. However, Plaintiff filed an earlier claim, Gayle v. Arbor Mortg. Corp., Case No. 12-10898. This case arises out of the same transactions and alleges similar claims against the same defendants as the earlier claims. But, in this action, Plaintiff also sues Defendants' attorneys.

On June 12, 2012, the Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On January 16, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed his Report and Recommendation denying Defendants' motions and dismissing Plaintiff's claim as moot. Plaintiff objected.

This Court reviews de novo any part of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on a dispositive motion that is properly objected to. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After careful review of the entire record, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusions. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is thorough; it lays out the facts and procedural history of the case, as well as the relevant case law. He denies Defendants' motions with a reasoned explanation. Particularly, he correctly finds that the addition of defense counsel as defendants is not a sufficient bases to allow this case to move forward, when the Court believes Plaintiff continues to fail to state a claim.

The Court ACCEPTS Magistrate Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk's Report and Recommendation. Defendants' motions to dismiss are DENIED as moot; Plaintiff's claims are sua sponte DISMISSED.

IT IS ORDERED.

________________________

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this document was served on the attorneys of record and Cleveland M. Gayle Jr. by electronic means or U.S. Mail on February 26, 2013.

Carol A. Pinegar

Deputy Clerk


Summaries of

Gayle v. Arbor Mortg. Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Feb 26, 2013
Case No. 12-cv-12489 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 26, 2013)
Case details for

Gayle v. Arbor Mortg. Corp.

Case Details

Full title:CLEVELAND M. GAYLE, JR., Plaintiff, v. ARBOR MORTGAGE CORPORATION, IVAN…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Feb 26, 2013

Citations

Case No. 12-cv-12489 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 26, 2013)