Opinion
Case No. 06-2064.
October 10, 2006
OPINION
A Report and Recommendation (#17) was filed by the Magistrate Judge in the above cause on September 5, 2006. More than ten (10) days have elapsed since the filing of the Recommendation and no objections have been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is, therefore, accepted by the court. See Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
(1) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (#9) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion to Dismiss is granted with prejudice as to Plaintiff's claim that either the content or mailing of Defendant Blatt Hasenmiller Leibsker Moore's April 22, 2005 letter violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), granted with prejudice as to Plaintiff's claim that the filing of the state court complaint violated the FDCPA, and granted without prejudice as to Plaintiff's common law fraud claim. The Motion to Dismiss is denied as to Plaintiff's claim that Defendants failed to validate the debt, denied as to Plaintiff's claim that Defendants claimed $250 in attorney fees in the state court case in violation of the FDCPA, and denied as to Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Strunk, Anderson, and Ping. Furthermore, Plaintiff's prayer for punitive damages pending the amendment of her fraud claim is stricken.
(2) Plaintiff is allowed fourteen (14) days to file an amended complaint to remedy her fraud claim.
(3) This case is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.