UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KURT GRAVES-EL,

in pro per,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 08-CV-15059

vs. HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

NATIONAL CITY BANK. et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Kurt Graves-El, appearing pro per, filed a complaint on December 8, 2008

alleging he promised to pay defendant National City Bank $177,805.00 on June 16, 2006

for a loan secured by a mortgage on 10832 Pardee, Taylor, Michigan. Graves-El alleges

that National City Bank was granted a security interest in the event he defaulted on the

loan, and that the home was sold at a June 4, 2008 Sheriff Sale. Graves-El seeks $1.1

million and an order quieting title to the property in his name alleging he "rescinded the

Mortgage agreement prior to the Sheriff Sale held on June 4, 2008" pursuant to the Real

Estate Settlement Procedure Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., the Truth in Lending

Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq., and "Federal Reserve Board Regulation Z, TITLE 15

SEC 1601." Graves-El further alleges that the Note he signed "was not a lawful contract,"

that National City Bank "has no evidence of any amount allegedly loan[ed]" to him, that the

Sheriff Sale "was extinguished by the rescinding of the Mortgage," that there is no evidence

that National City Bank "has any right to the subject property after the rescinding of the

Mortgage," and that there is no evidence that he "does not have the right to rescind the
2

Mortgage granted to" National City Bank. 

 In that Graves-El has paid the requisite filing fee and is not seeking in forma

pauperis status, the complaint is not subject to screening for sua sponte dismissal under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Benson v. O'Brian, 179 F.3d 1014 (6th Cir. 1999). Generally, a

court may not sua sponte dismiss a complaint where the filing fee has been paid unless the

court gives the plaintiff notice and an opportunity to amend the complaint. Tingler v.

Marshall, 716 F.2d 1109, 1111-12 (6th Cir. 1983). However, "a district court may, at any

time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule

12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the allegations of a complaint are

totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantiated, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer

open to discussion." Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999). 

Graves-El's allegations are totally implausible and devoid of merit. Graves-El is not

entitled to relief under the TILA or Regulation Z because the right to rescind a credit

transaction does not apply to residential mortgage transactions. See 15 U.S.C. §

1635(e)(1); 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(f)(1). Violations of RESPA cannot support a finding that the

subject mortgage is invalid or unenforceable. See 12 U.S.C. § 2615. Graves-El's

allegations that the Note was "unlawful" and that the Mortgage was "unconscionable" are

conclusionary, and do not support his claims for $1.1 million or a right to quiet title in the

property in his name. Accordingly, Graves-El's complaint is subject to sua sponte

dismissal. Apple, 183 F.3d at 479.

Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2008

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

December 12, 2008, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk