UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

REX ALLEN UMNEY,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No.: 14-13328

Honorable Matthew F. Leitman

v. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

 

COMMUNITY FINANCIAL 

MEMBERS FEDERAL 

CREDIT UNION 

Defendant. 

__________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR PRELIMNARY INJUNCTION [18]

Plaintiff Rex Allen Umney alleged in his complaint that Defendant 

Community Financial Members Federal Credit Union (“CFMFCE”) 

discriminated against him with respect to his mortgage application in July 

2014, in violation of fair lending regulations and statutes. [R. 1, PgID 2-3]. 

Umney sought only money damages in his complaint. [Id., PgID 3]. 

However, he subsequently filed a motion for preliminary injunction, alleging 

that CFMFCE’s actions violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 1691 (“ECOA”). His motion should be denied.

The essence of Umney’s claim is that CFMFCE retaliated by refusing 

to issue a mortgage in July 2014 because of a past dispute and lawsuit. [R. 

18, PgID 54-58]. However, the ECOA governs only discrimination based 

2:14-cv-13328-MFL-EAS Doc # 38 Filed 06/09/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 304
upon a suspect classification, such as race, color, religion, or other 

characteristics that are not related to creditworthiness. § 1691(a)(1); Lewis 

v. ACB Bus. Servs., Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 406 (6th Cir. 1998). Additionally, 

retaliation under the ECOA requires a showing that the plaintiff had 

engaged in activity that was protected under that Act. § 1691(a)(3); Lewis, 

135 F.3d at 406 (legislative history shows intent to bar retaliatory credit 

denials against applicants who exercise their rights under the Act). 

Here, Umney does not allege that he was denied credit due to a 

suspect classification, or that he was retaliated against for exercising a right 

under the ECOA. The origin of the dispute at issue is a claim by CFMFCE 

that Umney defaulted on the July 2008 loan agreement, a claim Umney 

subsequently challenged in a lawsuit. [R. 25-2, PgID 113; R. 18, PgID 54-

55; R. 25, PgID 104]. In July 2014, CFMFCE denied Umney a loan based 

upon the prior dispute. [R. 18, PgID 68]. This decision did not violate the 

ECOA, as the Act “was never intended to eliminate a creditor’s right to 

make a rational decision about an applicant’s credit worthiness.” Lewis, 

135 F.3d at 406 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Thus, Umney has no likelihood of success on the merits of his 

complaint, and his motion for preliminary injunction should be denied. 

Mich. State AFL-CIO v. Miller, 103 F.3d 1240, 1249 (6th Cir. 1997). 

2

2:14-cv-13328-MFL-EAS Doc # 38 Filed 06/09/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 305
IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the 

Umney’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction be denied [R. 18] be DENIED. 

Dated: June 9, 2015 s/Elizabeth A. Stafford

Detroit, Michigan ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Either party to this action may object to and seek review of this 

Report and Recommendation, but must act within fourteen days of service 

of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 

72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any 

further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. 

Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 

638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections which raise some issues but 

fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all objections that party 

might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Secretary of 

HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers 

Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). A copy of any objection 

must be served upon this Magistrate Judge. E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2).

3

2:14-cv-13328-MFL-EAS Doc # 38 Filed 06/09/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 306
Each objection must be labeled as “Objection #1,” “Objection #2,” 

etc., and must specify precisely the provision of this Report and 

Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than fourteen days after 

service of objections, the non-objecting party must file a response to 

the objections, specifically addressing each issue raised in the objections in 

the same order and labeled as “Response to Objection #1,” “Response to 

Objection #2,” etc. The response must be concise and proportionate in 

length and complexity to the objections, but there is otherwise no page 

limitation. If the Court determines that any objections are without merit, it 

may rule without awaiting the response.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF 

System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on June 9, 2015.

s/Marlena Williams

MARLENA WILLIAMS

Case Manager

4

2:14-cv-13328-MFL-EAS Doc # 38 Filed 06/09/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 307