Avedisian v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 16-654WES (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Rhode Island
Number: infdco20171212d53
Visitors: 1
Filed: Dec. 11, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 11, 2017
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM E. SMITH , Chief District Judge . Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan filed a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") on August 29, 2017 (ECF No. 18), recommending that the Court grant Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11) for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (ECF No. 14). Although Plaintiffs technically filed an objection to the R&R on October 17, 2017 (ECF No. 21), 1 this filing is an
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM E. SMITH , Chief District Judge . Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan filed a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") on August 29, 2017 (ECF No. 18), recommending that the Court grant Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11) for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (ECF No. 14). Although Plaintiffs technically filed an objection to the R&R on October 17, 2017 (ECF No. 21), 1 this filing is an o..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief District Judge.
Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan filed a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") on August 29, 2017 (ECF No. 18), recommending that the Court grant Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11) for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (ECF No. 14). Although Plaintiffs technically filed an objection to the R&R on October 17, 2017 (ECF No. 21),1 this filing is an objection in name only. Indeed, Plaintiffs simply refiled their response in opposition to Defendants' Motion To Dismiss and called it a response in opposition to the R&R. Alas, despite Plaintiffs' inventive relabeling, Plaintiffs' filing is no more persuasive at this juncture. In any event, Plaintiffs' failure to specifically object to the R&R constitutes a waiver of any right to review by this Court and the right to appeal the Court's decision. Garayalde-Rijos v. Municipality of Carolina, 747 F.3d 15, 21-22 (1st Cir. 2014); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); DRI LR 72(c)(1).
Accordingly, after carefully reviewing the relevant papers, the Court ACCEPTS in its entirety the R&R (ECF No. 18), which is comprehensive and well-reasoned. Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11) is, therefore, dismissed with prejudice as to all Defendants. As a necessary consequence, Plaintiffs' Second Motion To Amend Complaint (ECF No. 22) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Additionally, on October 18, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a second Motion To Amend/Correct their Complaint (ECF No. 22) ("Second Motion To Amend Complaint").
Source: Leagle
