Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Rajapakse v. Credit Acceptance Corp.

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

May 30, 2018

SAMANTHA RAJAPAKSE, Plaintiff,
v.
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORP., Defendant.

         ORDER (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS (ECF #58) TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF #57), (2) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION'S RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION, AND (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (ECF ## 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 25, 26, 27, AND 28)

          MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         In this action, pro se Plaintiff Samantha Rajapakse alleges that Defendant Credit Acceptance Corporation (“CAC”) and numerous individual Defendants violated several federal statutes, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, when Defendants attempted to collect an alleged debt related to her purchase of a vehicle. (See Compl., ECF #1.) Rajapakse has filed numerous motions seeking a preliminary injunction against the Defendants. (See ECF ## 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 25, 26, 27, and 28.) She has also filed three separate motions for summary judgment. (See ECF ## 9, 12, and 55.)

         On April 17, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the Court deny all of Rajapakse's preliminary junction motions (the “R&R”). (See ECF #57.) The Magistrate Judge concluded that Rajapakse “had not met her burden of proof to support the extraordinary remedy of injunctive relief.” (Id. at Pg. ID 496.) The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the Court require Rajapakse to withdraw two of her pending summary judgment motions because the Court's Local Rules only allow parties to file one summary judgment motion without leave of court. (See Id. at 3 n.4, Pg. ID 487.)

         Rajapakse filed timely objections to the R&R on April 23, 2018. (See ECF #58.)

         I

         When a party objects to portions of a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, the Court reviews those portions de novo. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); Lyons v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 351 F.Supp.2d 659, 661 (E.D. Mich. 2004). The Court has no duty to conduct an independent review of the portions of the R&R to which the parties did not object. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

         “An ‘objection' that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate's suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an ‘objection' as that term is used in this context.” Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F.Supp.2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004). Moreover, “[t]he filing of vague, general, or conclsuory objections does not meet the requirement of specific objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to object.” Zimmerman v. Cason, 354 Fed. App'x 228, 230 (6th Cir. 2009). Indeed, “[a] general objection to the entirety of the magistrate's report has the same effects as would failure to object. The district court's attention is not focused on any specific issues for review, thereby making the initial reference to the magistrate useless ... The duplication of time and effort wastes judicial resources rather than saving them, and runs contrary to the purposes of the Magistrates Act.” Id. (quoting Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Serv., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 2001)).

         II

         Rajapakse begins her objections by arguing that the assigned Magistrate Judge was biased against her. (See Objections, ECF #58 at Pg. ID 509-11.) Rajapakse insists that the Magistrate Judge issued the R&R as “retaliation for Plaintiff demanding the District Michigan Court to provide [sic] her the same equal protection as the defendants in the whole including Credit Acceptance Corporation.” (Objections, ECF #58 at Pg. ID 510.)

         These objections do not identify any particular flaw with the R&R and appear only to “state a disagreement with a magistrate's suggested resolution, ” which is not a valid objection. Aldrich, 327 F.Supp.2d at 747 (adopting report and recommendation and overruling objections that did “not object to the magistrate judge's recommendation with any specificity”). More importantly, Rajapakse's claim that the Magistrate Judge was “biased” against her is baseless. The Magistrate Judge carefully considered Rajapakse's claims and arguments, and she then thoroughly and appropriately explained in the R&R why Rajapakse was not entitled to injunctive relief.

         In the next section of the objections, Rajapakse lists ten questions related to the conduct of CAC and the Magistrate Judge. (See Objections, ECF #58 at Pg. ID 511-12.) The questions are not objections, and they do not provide any basis on which to conclude that the Magistrate Judge committed error in the R&R.

         Rajapakse next spends three pages appearing to summarize the R&R in lettered bullet points. (See Id. at Pg. ID 512-15.) To the extent that Rajapakse identifies any disagreements with the Magistrate Judge's conclusions in this section of her objections, Rajapakse does not attempt to explain how the Magistrate Judge erred. These objections are therefore insufficient because they are “vague, general, or conclusory.” Zimmerman, 354 Fed. App'x at 230.

         Rajapakse then lists thirty numbered “supported facts of the case.” (Objections, ECF #58 at Pg. ID 515-18.) These “supported facts” do nothing more than summarize Rajapakse's allegations against CAC and the procedural history of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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