1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

REX ALLEN UMNEY, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-13328 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

COMMUNITY FINANCIAL 

MEMBERS FEDERAL CREDIT 

UNION et al., 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF 

## 38, 46); (2) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (ECF ## 43, 

48); (3) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 

PLEADINGS (ECF #37); (4) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (ECF #18); AND 

(5) DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE 

INTRODUCTION 

 In this action, Plaintiff Rex Allen Umney (“Umney”) alleges that Defendants 

Community Financial Members Federal Credit Union and Community Financial 

Credit Union (collectively, “Defendants”) violated the Equal Credit Opportunity 

Act, 15 U.S.C. 1691 et. seq. (the “ECOA”). (See Frist Amended Complaint, ECF 

#21.) Specifically, Umney argues that the Defendants discriminated against him in 

violation of the ECOA with respect to his July 2014 mortgage application. (See 

id.) 

2:14-cv-13328-MFL-EAS Doc # 50 Filed 09/09/15 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 468
2 

 On March 18, 2015, Umney moved for entry of a preliminary injunction (the 

“Preliminary Injunction Motion”). (See ECF # 18.) Defendants thereafter filed a 

motion for judgment on the pleadings, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment 

(the “Motion for Judgment”). (See ECF #37.) Both motions were assigned to the 

Magistrate Judge, who issued reports and recommendations on both motions. The 

Magistrate Judge first recommended that the Preliminary Injunction Motion be 

denied (the “Preliminary Injunction R&R”). (See ECF #38.) She then 

recommended that the Motion for Judgment be granted (the “Motion for Judgment 

R&R”). (See ECF #46.) Umney has now objected to both reports. (See ECF ## 

42, 48.) 

 For the reasons explained below, the Court OVERRULES Umney’s 

objections to the Motion for Judgment R&R and the Preliminary Injunction R&R, 

ADOPTS those reports and recommendation as the Opinion of the Court, 

GRANTS the Motion for Judgment, DENIES the Preliminary Injunction Motion, 

and DISMISSES this action with prejudice. 

GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARD 

Where a party has objected to portions of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation, the Court conducts a de novo review of those portions. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) is governed by the same standards applicable to a 

2:14-cv-13328-MFL-EAS Doc # 50 Filed 09/09/15 Pg 2 of 7 Pg ID 469
3 

motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). See Lindsay v. Yates, 498 F.3d 

434, 437 n.5 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he legal standards for adjudicating Rule 12(b)(6) 

and Rule 12(c) motions are the same”). 

Rule 12(b)(6) provides for dismissal of a complaint when a plaintiff fails to 

state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “To 

survive a motion to dismiss” under Rule 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain 

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible 

on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. 

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when a 

plaintiff pleads factual content that permits a court to reasonably infer that the 

defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

556). When assessing the sufficiency of a plaintiff’s claim, a district court must 

accept all of a complaint's factual allegations as true. See Ziegler v. IBP Hog Mkt., 

Inc., 249 F.3d 509, 512 (6th Cir. 2001). “Mere conclusions,” however, “are not 

entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the 

complaint's framework, they must be supported by factual allegations.” Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 664. A plaintiff must therefore provide “more than labels and conclusions,” 

or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” to survive a motion 

to dismiss. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a 

cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 

2:14-cv-13328-MFL-EAS Doc # 50 Filed 09/09/15 Pg 3 of 7 Pg ID 470
4 

ANALYSIS 

In the well-reasoned Motion for Judgment R&R, the Magistrate Judge 

explained that in order to state a viable claim for “discrimination” under the 

ECOA, a plaintiff must allege (1) that he was denied credit based on his 

membership in a suspect class or (2) that he “has in good faith exercised any right 

under the Consumer Credit Protection Act”. (Motion for Judgment R&R at 5-7, 

Pg. ID 446-448.) The Magistrate Judge then noted that Umney did not claim to be 

a member of a suspect class. (See id.) She also explained that Umney’s First 

Amended Complaint, when read in its entirety (including the attached exhibits), 

did not allege that Umney had exercised any right under the Consumer Credit 

Protection Act. (See id.) The Magistrate Judge thus concluded that Umney’s 

claim failed as a matter of law. (See id.) 

 Umney raises three objections (which he mis-numbers as four objections) to 

the Motion for Judgment R&R. (See ECF #48.) First, Umney complains that he 

was not allowed to file a Second Amended Complaint. (See id. at 1-2, Pg. ID 451-

452). But Umney never provided a proposed version of that Complaint to the 

Magistrate Judge nor did he adequately explain what amendments he sought to 

include in a second amended pleading. In his objections to the Motion for 

Judgment R&R, Umney made a passing reference to asserting a claim under 15 

U.S.C. § 1692e(10), which addresses the use of false representations or deceptive 

2:14-cv-13328-MFL-EAS Doc # 50 Filed 09/09/15 Pg 4 of 7 Pg ID 471
5 

means in the debt collection process (see id. at 3, Pg. ID 453). But Umney never 

sufficiently explained the factual or legal bases for that proposed claim. 

Furthermore, for the reasons explained by Defendants, Umney could not have 

asserted a viable claim under this statute. (See ECF # 49 at 3, Pg. ID 463.) 

 Second, Umney complains that the Magistrate Judge did not allow him to 

conduct discovery to develop support for the “new counts” he sought to add in a 

second amended complaint. (See ECF #48 at 2-4, Pg. ID 452-453.) But because 

Umney failed to plead any viable claims, he had no right to conduct any discovery 

– and certainly no right to conduct discovery in an attempt to develop support for 

some “new” but yet-unpleaded claims. 

 Finally, Umney objects that the Magistrate Judge applied the wrong legal 

standard and held his First Amended Complaint to an unfairly high pleading 

standard. (See id. at 4-7, Pg. ID 453-457.) She did not. The Magistrate Judge 

cited the proper governing standard from Sixth Circuit authority and reasonably 

applied that authority to Umney’s pleadings.1

 The Court has also reviewed de novo the portions of the Preliminary 

Injunction R&R to which Umney has objected. (See ECF #42.) For the reasons 

stated above, and those stated in Defendants’ response to Umney’s objections (see 

 

1

 Likewise, the Court does not believe the Magistrate Judge erred when she 

declined to hold oral argument on the Preliminary Injunction Motion or the Motion 

for Judgment (see ECF #40), and the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objection that he 

should have been granted such argument. (See ECF #43.) 

2:14-cv-13328-MFL-EAS Doc # 50 Filed 09/09/15 Pg 5 of 7 Pg ID 472
6 

ECF #45), the Court overrules Umney’s objections. Moreover, and in any event, 

because the Court is dismissing this action with prejudice, any request by Umney 

for a preliminary injunction is moot. 

CONCLUSION 

In sum, the Court finds no merit in Umney’s objections to the Motion for 

Judgment R&R. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 Umney’s objections to the Motion for Judgment R&R (ECF #48) and 

the Preliminary Injunction R&R (ECF #38) are OVERRULED; 

 Umney’s objections to the failure to hold oral argument (ECF #43) 

are OVERRULED; 

 The Preliminary Injunction R&R (ECF #38) and the Motion for 

Judgment R&R (ECF #46) are ADOPTED as the Opinion of this 

Court; 

 The Preliminary Injunction Motion (ECF #18) is DENIED; and 

 The Motion for Judgment (ECF #37) is GRANTED and this action is 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: September 9, 2015 

2:14-cv-13328-MFL-EAS Doc # 50 Filed 09/09/15 Pg 6 of 7 Pg ID 473
7 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on September 9, 2015, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113

2:14-cv-13328-MFL-EAS Doc # 50 Filed 09/09/15 Pg 7 of 7 Pg ID 474