UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LARRY W. MABRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE COMPANY,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 09-cv-12154

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORTS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS (docket nos. 44 and 45) AND GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (docket no. 12) AND DEFENDANTS’

 MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (docket 26)

This is an action asserting claims under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act,

the Fourteenth Amendment, and a state law claim of Intentional Infliction of Emotional

Distress, stemming from foreclosure proceedings on the plaintiff’s investment properties

located at 514 Williams Street in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Plaintiff has named Ameriquest

Mortgage Company, Citi Residential Lending, Inc., Ameriquest Mortgage Securities, Inc.,

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee, American Home Mortgage Servicing,

and Potestivo & Associates, P.C. as Defendants. Before the Court are defendant Potestivo

& Associates, P.C.’s motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment, filed on

June 23, 2009 (docket no. 12), defendants Ameriquest Mortgage Company and Ameriquest

Mortgage Securities, Inc.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (docket no. 26), and the

Reports and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen, filed on February

24, 2010 (docket no. 44) and February 26, 2010 (docket no. 45), respectively. The

magistrate judge’s reports and recommendations recommended that both motions be

granted and that defendants Potestivo & Associates, P.C., Ameriquest Mortgage Company
2

and Ameriquest Mortgage Securities, Inc., be dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate

Judge also notified the parties that any objections must be filed within fourteen days of

service. No party has filed objections to the reports and recommendations.

The Court’s standard of review for a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation

depends upon whether a party files objections. If a party does not object to the report and

recommendation, the Court does not need to conduct a review by any standard. Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Because neither party filed timely objections to

Magistrate Judge Whalen’s reports and recommendations, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1)(c);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e), this Court need not and will not conduct a review.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation

of February 24, 2010 [docket entry 44] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the opinion of this

Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Potestivo & Associates, P.C.’s motion to dismiss or,

in the alternative, for summary judgment [docket entry 12] is GRANTED. All claims

against Potestivo & Associates, P.C. are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation

dated February 26, 2010 [docket entry 45] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the opinion

of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ameriquest Mortgage Company’s and Ameriquest

Mortgage Securities, Inc.’s motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [docket entry26] is

GRANTED. All claims against Ameriquest Mortgage Company and Ameriquest Mortgage

Securities, Inc. are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED.
3

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III 

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

United States District Judge

Dated: March 19, 2010

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

counsel of record on March 19, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

Alissa Greer 

Case Manager