Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Hogan v. Visio Financial Services, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

June 25, 2015

Phillip Wendell Hogan, Plaintiff,
v.
Visio Financial Services, Inc., Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

SEAN F. COX, District Judge.

Plaintiff filed this action on March 3, 2015 in Wayne County Circuit Court, alleging several state law causes of action in addition to a claim pursuant to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. ยง 2605, all of which stem from the foreclosure of his property located in Detroit, Michigan.

Defendant removed the case to this Court on March 12, 2015. (Notice of Removal, Doc. #1). The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims and remanded them back to the Wayne County Circuit Court. (Remand Order, Doc. #5). Shortly thereafter, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. #7).

On June 2, 2015, Magistrate Judge David R. Grand issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (R&R, Doc. #14). Magistrate Judge Grand reasoned that, because Plaintiff seeks only equitable relief, and because equitable relief is not an available form of relief under RESPA and its implementing regulations, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (R&R, Doc. #14 at 3, 4-6).

Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), a party objecting to the recommended disposition of a matter by a Magistrate Judge must file objections to the R&R within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the R&R. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). "The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3).

Neither party has filed objections to the R&R and the time for doing so has passed. Furthermore, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Therefore, the Court hereby ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the June 2, 2015 R&R. IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #7) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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