Derek Brown v. Newrez, LLC

Brown v. Newrez · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · February 6, 2026 · No. 25-11552

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan overruled Derek Brown’s objection to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, adopted the recommendation, and granted Newrez LLC’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed Brown’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act complaint, finding that his one-sentence objection did not identify a specific error and that the Report and Recommendation contained no clear error.

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Writing for the Court
Shalina D. Kumar
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Decision date
February 6, 2026
Docket number
25-11552
Procedural posture
Plaintiff objected to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation recommending dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court reviewed the objection, overruled it, adopted the report and recommendation, granted the motion to dismiss, and dismissed the complaint.
Standard of review
Specific objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation receive de novo review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3). When an objection is general or merely reiterates arguments previously presented, the report and recommendation is reviewed for clear error.
Precedential value
unknown
Parties
Derek Brown v. Newrez, LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

motions to dismisscivil procedurepleadingsfair debt collection

Practice areas

civil procedureconsumer protectionfair debt collection

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Brown's one-sentence objection adequately identified a specific error in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation so as to require de novo review.
  2. Whether the report and recommendation should be adopted and Brown's complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Holdings

  1. An objection must specifically identify the challenged finding or determination and explain how the magistrate judge's analysis was erroneous; a general objection that does not do so is not entitled to de novo review.
  2. The court found no clear error in the report and recommendation, adopted it, granted Newrez's Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and dismissed Brown's complaint.

Key quotations

A general objection, or one that merely restates the arguments previously presented and addressed by the magistrate judge, does not sufficiently identify alleged errors in the report and recommendation. (at 3)
The Court therefore OVERRULES Brown’s objection (ECF No. 17), ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No.15), GRANTS Shellpoint’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4), and DISMISSES Brown’s complaint (ECF No. 1). (at 4)

Factual background

Derek Brown, proceeding pro se, sued Newrez, LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The complaint was challenged through a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and the magistrate judge recommended dismissal for failure to state a claim. Brown's only objection to the recommendation was, "I would like a better answer."

Procedural history

Brown filed a pro se complaint against Newrez, LLC alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Newrez moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), and the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation recommending dismissal for failure to state a claim. Brown filed a one-sentence objection stating, "I would like a better answer." The district court found no clear error, adopted the report and recommendation, granted the motion, dismissed the complaint, and closed the case.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…