REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

NANCY G. EDMUNDS, District Judge.

Before the Court are Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. #35] and Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. #37], which have been referred for Reports and Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Because this Court does not have jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief while the case is on appeal, I recommend that both motions be DENIED.

I. FACTS

Plaintiffs filed a 1,384-paragraph complaint in this Court on February 28, 2011, alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.("RESPA"), the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. ("FDCPA"), and a number of state law claims. On December 27, 2011, I filed a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") that Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted [Doc. #22].1 On January 30, 2012, United States District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds adopted the R&R and entered an order dismissing all claims with prejudice [Doc. #27]. On February 22, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal [Doc. #31]. On February 24, 2012, Judge Edmunds declined to consider Plaintiffs' motion for relief from judgment [Doc. #34]. On May 24, 2012, Plaintiffs filed the present motions for injunctive relief [Doc. #35, 37].

In these motions, Plaintiffs ask that Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. ("CitiMortgage"), the servicer of their mortgage, be enjoined from (a) making demands for payment, (b) commencing foreclosure proceedings on their real property, (c) designating their mortgage as "in default" or "delinquent"; and (d) reporting adverse information as to their account to credit reporting agencies.

II. DISCUSSION

Following the dismissal of their complaint and entry of judgment against them, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on February 22, 2012. "As a general rule the filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction and transfers jurisdiction to the court of appeals." Cochran v. Birkel, 651 F.2d 1219, 1221 (6th Cir.1981). There is a narrow exception to this rule that permits a district court to enforce (but not enlarge) its judgment. NLRB v. Cincinnati Bronze, Inc., 829 F.2d 585, 588 (6th Cir.1987) ("Although a district court may not alter or enlarge the scope of its judgment pending appeal, it does retain jurisdiction to enforce the judgment.").

In this case, judgment was entered against the Plaintiffs. Granting injunctive relief to them would clearly "enlarge the scope of the judgment pending appeal." See City of Cookeville, Tenn. v. Upper Cumberland Elec. Membership Corp., 484 F.3d 380, 394 (6th Cir. 2007) (district court erred in granting an injunction pending an appeal, where the injunction expanded its previous judgment instead of merely enforcing it). There is no basis to deviate from the general rule described Cochran. This Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the Plaintiffs' motions, and any request for injunctive relief must be addressed to the Court of Appeals.2

III. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, I recommend that Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. #35] and Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. #37] be DENIED.

Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within 14 days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (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 of objections which raise some issues but fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all the objections a party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sullivan, 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). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.

Within 14 days of service of any objecting party's timely filed objections, the opposing party may file a response. The response shall be not more than twenty (20) pages in length unless by motion and order such page limit is extended by the court. The response shall address specifically, and in the same order raised, each issue contained within the objections.