United States District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Western Division
January 22, 2015
BERNARED EUGENE COLEMAN, Plaintiff,
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC.; LIME FINANCIAL SERVICES, LTD; ASSURED ESCROW AND TITLE; SAXON MORTGAGE; OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; and DEUTSCH BANK NATIONAL TRUST, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS
SHERYL H. LIPMAN U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 21) on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 14, 16). The Magistrate Judge filed her Report and Recommendations on October 16, 2014, and Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the Report and Recommendation on October 29, 2014. (See ECF No. 22.)
District courts must conduct a de novo review of the parts of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, after conducting a de novo review, a district court is not required to articulate all of the reasons for which it rejects a party's objections. Tuggle v. Seabold, 806 F.2d 87, 92 (6th Cir. 1986). This Court has conducted a de novo review by reviewing the record before the Magistrate Judge in light of Plaintiff's objections and hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED on res judicata grounds because Plaintiff has already litigated nearly identical claims against these identical parties. See Bernard Coleman v. Lime Financial Services, LTD, et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-2282-JTF-tmp (W.D. Tenn.).
As the Magistrate Judge correctly noted, it is not completely clear from Coleman’s complaint if the exact issues presented in this complaint were litigated in the earlier case, however, the issues are so similar that if they were not litigated, they should have been, and therefore they are barred by res judicata. See Bragg v. Flint Bd. of Educ., 570 F.3d 775, 777 (6th Cir. 2009).
IT IS SO ORDERED.