United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
STEPHANIE DAWKINS DAVIS, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS , ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION , AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III, United States District Judge
effort to stop the foreclosure sale of his deceased
parents' home, Plaintiff Robert Lee Samulak filed an
action alleging violations of (1) the Racketeering Influenced
and Corrupt Organization Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68;
(2) the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act; and (3) Michigan Court Rule 2.112(B)(1). The Court
referred the matter to the magistrate judge. ECF 18.
Defendants Carington Mortgage Services, LLC and Mortgage
Electronic Registration Service, Inc. filed a Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). ECF
31. The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation
("Report") suggesting the Court grant
Defendants' motion and dismiss Plaintiff's claims
with prejudice. ECF 43. Plaintiff then filed timely
objections. ECF 44. Having examined the record and considered
the objections de novo, the Court will overrule the
objections, adopt the Report, grant Defendants' Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings, and dismiss the complaint.
Report properly details the events giving rise to
Plaintiff's action. ECF 43, PgID 635-39. The Court will
adopt that portion of the Report.
Rule 72(b) governs the review of a magistrate judge's
report. A district court's standard of review depends
upon whether a party files objections. The Court need not
undertake any review of portions of a Report to which no
party has objected. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153
(1985). De novo review is required, however, if the parties
"serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations." Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(2). In conducting a de novo review, "[t]he
district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended
disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter
to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed.R.Civ.P.
Plaintiff's Claims are Barred by Res Judicata
objects to the magistrate judge's determination that res
judicata bars his claims. Obj. 11, ECF 44, PgID 667.
Plaintiff's principal argument is that all claims and
issues have not been fully adjudicated on the merits.
Plaintiff's Objection No. 11 is overruled.
original adjudication occurred in a federal bankruptcy court,
so federal law governs its preclusive effect.
Hamilton's Bogarts, Inc. v. Michigan, 501 F.3d
644, 650 (6th Cir. 2007) (preclusive effect of a judgment
issued by a federal court is governed by federal law). Under
federal law, res judicata applies "when (1) there is a
final decision on the merits of the first action by a court
of competent jurisdiction; (2) the second action involves the
same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) the second
action raises an issue actually litigated or which should
have been litigated in the first action; and (4) there is
identity of claims." Walker v. Gen. Tel. Co.,
25 F.App'x 332, 336 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Sanders
Confectionery Prod., Inc. v. Heller Fin., Inc., 973 F.2d
474, 480 (6th Cir. 1992)). Once res judicata is established,
it "extinguishes all rights of the plaintiff to remedies
against the defendant with respect to all or any part o[f]
the transaction, or series of connected transaction, out of
which the action arose." Walker, 25 F.App'x
at 336 (quoting J.Z.G. Res., Inc. v. Shelby Ins.
Co., 84 F.3d 211, 215 (6th Cir. 1996)).
judicata applies here, and Plaintiff's claims are barred.
The Court will address each element in turn.
There was a final decision on the merits.
record shows that Plaintiff brought an adversary complaint in
a federal bankruptcy court challenging the promissory note,
mortgage, and foreclosure at issue here. ECF 31-11. After
oral argument, the bankruptcy court filed an order dismissing
the complaint "in its entirety and with prejudice."
ECF 31-12, PgID 367. The order was a final
order on the merits by a court of competent
jurisdiction for purposes of res judicata. See Winget v.
JP Morgan Chase Bank, ...