United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
DONALD R. BISHOP, Plaintiff,
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. and SHAPIRO AND KIRSCH, LLP, Defendants.
SAMUEL H. MAYS, Jr., District Judge.
On September 16, 2014, Plaintiff Donald R. Bishop ("Bishop") filed his pro se Complaint against Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("Chase") and Defendant Shapiro and Kirsch, LLP ("Shapiro & Kirsch") (collectively, the "Defendants"), seeking to set aside a non-judicial foreclosure sale and alleging violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692, et seq, the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-104, and the Tennessee Collection Service Act ("TCSA"), Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-20-127. (ECF No. 1.)
Before the Court are Chase's April 14, 2015 Motion for Summary Judgment (the "Motion"), the Magistrate Judge's May 29, 2015 Report and Recommendation Granting the Motion (the "R&R"), and Bishop's June 11, 2015 Objection to the R&R (the "Objection"). (MSJ, ECF No. 20; R&R, ECF No. 25; Obj., ECF No. 26.) Shapiro & Kirsch joined the Motion on May 4, 2014. (ECF Nos. 23-24.) Chase responded to the Objection on June 25, 2015 (the "Response"). (ECF No. 25.) Shapiro & Kirsch joined the Response on June 26, 2015. (ECF Nos. 28-29.)
For the following reasons, the Objection is OVERRULED, the R&R is ADOPTED, and the Motion is GRANTED.
The Court assumes familiarity with the factual and procedural background of this case, which the R&R sets forth in detail. (R&R.) Unless otherwise stated, the Court adopts the R&R's defined terms.
Bishop alleges violation of the FDCPA, TCPA, and TCSA. The Court has federal question jurisdiction over the FDCPA Claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims because they derive from a "common nucleus of operative fact." United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966). Where, as here, there is no dispute that a certain state's substantive law applies, the Court will not conduct a "choice of law" analysis sua sponte. See GBJ Corp. v. Eastern Ohio Paving Co., 139 F.3d 1080, 1085 (6th Cir. 1998). Tennessee substantive law applies.
III. Standard of Review
Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve the burden on the federal judiciary by permitting the assignment of district court duties to Magistrate Judges. See United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 869-70 (1989)); see also Baker v. Peterson, 67 F.App'x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003). "A district judge must determine de novo any part of a Magistrate Judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). After reviewing the evidence, the Court is free to accept, reject, or modify the proposed findings or recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district court is not required to review-under a de novo or any other standard-"any issue that is not the subject of an objection." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). The district court should adopt the findings and rulings of the Magistrate Judge to which no specific objection is filed. Id. at 151.
"The filing of vague, general, or conclusory objections does not meet the requirement of specific objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to object." Zimmerman v. Cason, 354 F.App'x 228, 230 (6th Cir. 2009). Parties cannot validly object to a magistrate's report without explaining the source of the error. Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991).
Bishop asserts his objections in fifteen numbered paragraphs:
1. BISHOP accepts the United States Constitution and within it, protections and guarantees of BISHOP's unalienable rights, and the privileges it affords him as a ...