United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, dated October 2, 2017 (the
“Report”). (ECF No. 8.) The Report recommends
that Plaintiffs Joel Carter and Catrina Ford Carter's
pro se complaint against Defendants
21stMortgage Corporation and Knoxville 2012 Trust
(collectively, “Defendants”) be dismissed sua
sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Plaintiffs have not filed any objections to the Report, and
the deadline for doing so has passed. L.R. 72.1(g)(2).
following reasons, the Report is ADOPTED and this action is
September 28, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their pro se
complaint against Defendants for violation of civil rights
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) The complaint
alleges that: “Under 42 USC 1983 constitutional rights
deprived[.] Facts regarding Mortgage is securitization
illegal[.] Courtney Ward of 21st Mortgage violated const.
rights harassment[.]” (Id. at 2.) As relief,
plaintiffs request: “A Recouptent [sic] of all money
given to 21st Mortgage plus interest[.]” (Id.
at 3.) Plaintiffs have named Knoxville 2012 Trust as a
defendant, but include no reference to its conduct or
potential liability in the complaint. (Id. at 1-3.)
October 2, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham
entered the Report. (ECF No. 8.) The Report recommends that
the action be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim.
The Report explains as follows:
Plaintiffs' complaint is captioned “Complaint for
Violation of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C, § 1983.”
(ECF No. 1 at 1.) To state a claim under § 1983, a
plaintiff must allege: (1) a deprivation of rights secured by
the “Constitution and laws” of the United States
(2) committed by a defendant acting under color of state law.
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 150
(1970). “A § 1983 plaintiff may not sue purely
private parties.” Brotherton v. Cleveland, 173
F.3d 552, 567 (6th Cir. 1999). Thus, “[i]n order to be
subject to suit under § 1983, [a] defendant's
actions must be fairly attributable to the state.”
Collyer v. Darling, 98 F.3d 211, 231-32 (6th Cir.
1997). 21st Mortgage Corporation and Knoxville 2012 Trust
appear to be purely private parties, and plaintiffs'
complaint does not allege that their actions were performed
under color of state law or could otherwise be fairly
attributed to the state. Therefore, plaintiffs cannot bring a
section 1983 claim against 21st Mortgage Corporation or
Knoxville 2012 Trust. See Berry v. Walter Mortg.
Co., No. 1:13CV-00173-JHM, 2014 WL 2219233, at *4 (W.D.
Ky. May 29, 2014) (finding that plaintiff failed to state a
§ 1983 claim against a mortgage company when
plaintiff's complaint, construed in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, did not indicate or allege that
the mortgage company acted under color of state law).
Furthermore, plaintiffs fail to provide any factual support
for the allegation that the defendants' actions deprived
them of any constitutional rights. Thus, the complaint
contains only “a blanket assertion of entitlement to
relief.” See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 n.3 (2007). Because such conclusory allegations
are insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief, the
complaint must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
(ECF No. 8 at 18-20 (footnotes omitted).)
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). For dispositive matters,
“[t]he district judge must determine de novo
any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has
been properly objected to.” See Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After reviewing the
evidence, the court is free to accept, reject, or modify the
magistrate judge's proposed findings or recommendations.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court is not
required to review -- under a de novo or any other
standard -- those aspects of the report and recommendation to
which no objection is made. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 150 (1985). The district court should adopt the
magistrate judge's findings and rulings to which no
specific objection is filed. Id. at 151.
have not objected to the Report. Therefore, adoption of the
Report's recommendations is warranted. See Arn,
474 U.S. at 150-51.
foregoing reasons, the Report is ADOPTED and this action is