[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-10752

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

GENE E. OLUFEMI, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

EXCLUSIVE ASSOCIATION MANAGEMENT, 

c/o Julie Stephens, Registered Agent,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-01391-SEG

USCA11 Case: 23-10752 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 02/21/2024 Page: 1 of 9
2 Opinion of the Court 23-10752

____________________

Before WILSON, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Gene Olufemi filed a claim under the Fair Debt Collection 

Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, against the property 

management company Exclusive Association Management 

(“EAM”). Olufemi proceeded pro se below and is proceeding pro se 

on appeal. On appeal, Olufemi raises three issues related to the 

district court’s handling of various motions that he filed and challenges the court’s ultimate dismissal of his claim on two grounds. 

First, he argues that the district court should have reversed 

its stay of proceedings upon his motion—which the court construed as a motion to reconsider—because the stay was based on 

the erroneous finding that it was unopposed. Second, he argues 

that the district court should have granted his motion for default 

judgment because he did not receive EAM’s answer until after the 

deadline had passed. Third, he argues that the district court should 

not have denied his motion for summary judgment as premature 

because discovery should not have been stayed.

On the merits, he argues that the district court erred in 

granting EAM’s motion to dismiss his FDCPA claim. He argues 

that his claims were not precluded under the res judicata doctrine 

because his claim is for a continuing wrong and because the state 

court in a prior related proceeding did not allow him to present his 

USCA11 Case: 23-10752 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 02/21/2024 Page: 2 of 9
23-10752 Opinion of the Court 3

exhibits. Finally, he argues that EAM is a debt collector within the 

meaning of the FDCPA.

I.

We review a district court’s decision to stay discovery for an 

abuse of discretion. Isaiah v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 960 F.3d 1296, 

1308 (11th Cir. 2020). “A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, applies the law in an unreasonable 

or incorrect manner, or follows improper procedures in making its 

decision.” Id. The district court enjoys “broad discretion to stay 

proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” 

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997).

Dispositive motions that present purely legal questions—

such as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim—should be 

resolved before discovery. Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 

F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997). Discovery imposes high costs on 

the court and on litigants in time and resources, and thus, any claim 

that is not viable should be dismissed before discovery whenever 

possible. See id. at 1367-68. When there is a pending motion that 

presents a purely legal question and is likely to be dispositive, a district court may stay discovery pending the resolution of the motion. See Isaiah, 960 F.3d at 1308-09.

Here, regardless of how the motion was construed, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Olufemi’s motion 

opposing the stay of discovery. Isaiah, 960 F.3d. at 1308. EAM’s 

motion to dismiss presented three questions that were potentially 

dispositive on Olufemi’s FDCPA claim: (1) whether the court had 

USCA11 Case: 23-10752 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 02/21/2024 Page: 3 of 9
4 Opinion of the Court 23-10752

subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; (2) 

whether the doctrine of res judicata barred his claims; and (3) 

whether Olufemi failed to state a claim. Because the motion to 

dismiss presented a potential resolution to the case that required 

no further findings of fact, this Court’s precedent dictates that the 

district court should rule on the motion before discovery. Chudasama, 123 F.3d at 1367. A stay of discovery pending the resolution 

of the motion was an appropriate way for the district court to do 

so. Isaiah, 960 F.3d at 1308-09.

Even if Olufemi had timely responded to the motion, he offered no reason other than his opposition why the district court 

should not have granted the stay. Contrary to Olufemi’s assertion 

that the district court offered no explanation for the stay other than 

his lack of opposition, the court also stated it was staying proceedings “in the interest of efficiency.” Given the high costs of discovery and the preference for deciding dispositive, purely legal motions before those costs are incurred, the district court was well 

within its discretion when it stayed proceedings and when it continued the stay over Olufemi’s objection. Chudasama, 123 F.3d at 

1367-68. 

II.

We review a denial of default judgment for abuse of discretion. Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1985). Default 

judgment is discretionary and should only be used in “extreme situations” because of the “strong preference” for deciding cases on 

the merits. Id.

USCA11 Case: 23-10752 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 02/21/2024 Page: 4 of 9
23-10752 Opinion of the Court 5

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied 

Olufemi’s motion for default judgment because the record indicates that EAM’s answer was timely filed and served. EAM was 

served with the complaint on May 16, 2022, so the deadline to serve 

its answer was June 6, 2022. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). According to the certificate of service, EAM filed and served its answer on 

June 3, 2022, three days before the deadline. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

5(b)(2)(C). Olufemi maintains that he never received the answer 

by mail. Even if this were enough to show that service was untimely, Olufemi received the answer via email on June 21, 2022, 

before any meaningful action in the case, and thus was not prejudiced. Given the strong preference for deciding a case on the merits, the district court’s denial of default judgment was not an abuse 

of discretion. 

III.

We review “the district court’s grant or denial of summary 

judgment de novo, applying the same legal standard as the district 

court.” Thai Meditation Ass’n of Alabama, Inc. v. City of Mobile, Alabama, 83 F.4th 922, 926 (11th Cir. 2023). Summary judgment is appropriate when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute 

as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Each party must support its 

factual assertions by citing evidence in the record. Id. 56(c)(1). 

Thus, “[s]ummary judgment is premature when a party is not provided a reasonable opportunity to discover information essential to 

his opposition.” Smith v. Florida Dept. of Corr., 713 F.3d 1059, 1064 

(11th Cir. 2013).

USCA11 Case: 23-10752 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 02/21/2024 Page: 5 of 9
6 Opinion of the Court 23-10752

The district court did not err in denying Olufemi’s motion 

for summary judgment as premature because EAM did not have 

an opportunity to discover evidence to support its opposition.

IV.

We generally review de novo a grant of a motion to dismiss 

for failure to state a claim and may affirm on any basis supported 

by the record, regardless of whether the district court relied on that 

basis. Baker v. City of Madison, Alabama, 67 F.4th 1268, 1276 (11th 

Cir. 2023). However, when a party fails to object to a magistrate 

judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation (“R&R”), that party waives the right to challenge on 

appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to legal conclusions, so long as the party was informed of the period for objecting and the consequences of failing to object. 11th Cir. R. 3-1. In 

the absence of a proper objection, however, we may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. Id.

Res judicata prevents parties from relitigating issues already 

decided by a competent court. Cmty. State Bank v. Strong, 651 F.3d 

1241, 1263 (11th Cir. 2011). “In considering whether to give preclusive effect to state-court judgments under res judicata . . . the 

federal court must apply the rendering state’s law of preclusion.” 

Id. Under Georgia law, a claim is precluded if the following elements are met: “(1) identity of the cause of action, (2) identity of 

the parties or their privies, (3) previous adjudication on the merits 

USCA11 Case: 23-10752 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 02/21/2024 Page: 6 of 9
23-10752 Opinion of the Court 7

by a court of competent jurisdiction,” and (4) final judgment. Id. at 

1265 n.21 (citing O.C.G.A. § 9-12-40).

Olufemi waived his right to appeal the district court’s finding that his claims were precluded under the res judicata doctrine 

because he did not challenge the magistrate judge’s legal conclusion in the R&R and he was advised of the consequences of failing 

to object. He does not argue that the interest of justice demands 

that we review the issue, and the interest of justice does not so demand because, as discussed below, the motion to dismiss may be 

affirmed on other grounds. 

Even if Olufemi’s res judicata challenge were not waived, the 

district court did not err because Olufemi’s FDCPA claim was precluded. Strong, 651 F.3d at 1263. His state court and federal claims 

involved the same subject matter, cause of action, and parties, and 

the state court had jurisdiction and reached a final judgment on the 

merits. Strong, 651 F.3d at 1263. Thus, the district court did not err 

in finding that Olufemi’s claim was precluded. 

V.

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must “state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). In other words, the complaint must contain sufficient facts such that a court could draw a reasonable inference that 

the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. The pleading 

need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” but must include 

“more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me 

accusation.” Id. In considering a motion to dismiss, courts “are not 

USCA11 Case: 23-10752 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 02/21/2024 Page: 7 of 9
8 Opinion of the Court 23-10752

bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Id.

The FDCPA only applies to “debt collectors.” Harris v. Liberty Cmty. Mgmt., Inc., 702 F.3d 1298, 1302 (11th Cir. 2012). “[N]ot 

all who collect debts are ‘debt collectors’” within the meaning of 

the statute. Id. A “debt collector” is a person who regularly collects 

or attempts to collect the debts owed to another, but it does not 

include employees of creditors or entities that collect debt incidental to a bona fide fiduciary obligation. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

Here, the district court did not err in granting EAM’s motion 

to dismiss because Olufemi’s complaint failed to state a claim. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. To bring a claim under the FDCPA a plaintiff 

must show that the defendant is a debt collector, which means 

more than an entity who collects debts. See Harris, 702 F.3d at 1302. 

Olufemi’s complaint merely stated that EAM contacted him about 

an alleged debt throughout 2021. He did not include any facts 

about what sort of entity EAM is, what the alleged debt was, 

whether EAM was attempting to collect the debt for itself or another entity, or any other information that would be necessary for 

a court to determine whether EAM was a debt collector within the 

meaning of the FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). Rather, Olufemi’s 

statement of the case was “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Dist. Ct. Doc. 1 at 4; Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678. Because Olufemi’s complaint did not contain sufficient facts 

such that a court could draw a reasonable inference that EAM was 

USCA11 Case: 23-10752 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 02/21/2024 Page: 8 of 9
23-10752 Opinion of the Court 9

a debt collector within the meaning of the statute, the district court 

did not err in granting EAM’s motion to dismiss. 

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court 

is

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 23-10752 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 02/21/2024 Page: 9 of 9