United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
December 30, 2014
WESLEY COOPER, Plaintiff,
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., Defendant.
Michael J. Hluchaniuk, Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR DISCOVERY 
LAURIE J. MICHELSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pro se Plaintiff Wesley Cooper filed an Emergency Motion for Discovery on December 24, 2014. (Dkt. 11.) Defendant Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) is currently pending. (Dkt. 3; see Dkt. 10.) A Rule 12(b)(6) motion asks the Court to decide whether the plaintiff has a claim to relief if all the allegations of the Complaint are assumed to be true. In deciding a 12(b)(6) motion, the court must “accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiffs.” Bennet v. MIS Corp., 607 F.3d 1076, 1091 (6th Cir. 2010). In general, “a district court may not consider matters beyond the complaint” when analyzing a motion to dismiss. Winget v. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 537 F.3d 565, 575 (6th Cir. 2008). Therefore, no discovery is needed for a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). See Gettings v. Building Laborers Local 310 Fringe Benefits Fund, 349 F.3d 300, 304 (6th Cir. 2003) (“Limitations on pretrial discovery are appropriate where claims may be dismissed ‘based on legal determinations that could not have been altered by any further discovery.’” (quoting Muzquiz v. W.A. Foote Memorial Hosp., Inc., 70 F.3d 422, 430 (6th Cir. 1995).). The Court sees no need for discovery at this point in the litigation. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Discovery (Dkt. 11) is DENIED.