ALEXANDER-LISTER v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., 1:15-CV-3749-TWT. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20160115r62
Visitors: 16
Filed: Jan. 14, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 14, 2016
Summary: ORDER THOMAS W. THRASH, Jr. , District Judge . This is an action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. It is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 3] of the Magistrate Judge recommending dismissing the action for failure to state a claim. No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. For the reasons set forth in the thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation, the Plaintiff has no standing to object to the assignment of her mortgage to EM
Summary: ORDER THOMAS W. THRASH, Jr. , District Judge . This is an action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. It is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 3] of the Magistrate Judge recommending dismissing the action for failure to state a claim. No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. For the reasons set forth in the thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation, the Plaintiff has no standing to object to the assignment of her mortgage to EMC..
More
ORDER
THOMAS W. THRASH, Jr., District Judge.
This is an action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. It is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 3] of the Magistrate Judge recommending dismissing the action for failure to state a claim. No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. For the reasons set forth in the thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation, the Plaintiff has no standing to object to the assignment of her mortgage to EMC Mortgage.1 The Court approves and adopts the Report and Recommendation as the judgment of the Court. This action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. See McCloud v. HSBC Bank USA, NA, 618 Fed. Appx. 660 n.2 (11th Cir. 2015) ("McCloud — as a non-party to the assignments — lacks standing to challenge to validity of the assignments."); Milburn v. Aegis Wholesale Corp., No. 1:12-CV-01886-RWS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36664, at *9 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 18, 2013) (explaining that "as a stranger to the Assignment, Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge it"); Montgomery v. Bank of Am., 321 Ga.App. 343, 346 (2013) (finding that even if "the assignment on behalf of MERS was flawed, the proper party to bring a claim against MERS would be the other party to the assignment, BAC," not the plaintiff who therefore "has no basis to contest the validity of the assignment").
Source: Leagle
