Christopher Earl Peek v. PHH Mortgage Services Corp

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-14686
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-00367-ELR
CHRISTOPHER EARL PEEK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PHH MORTGAGE SERVICES CORP,
Its Subsidiaries affiliates, and Assigns,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(August 23, 2021)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, JORDAN and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-14686 Date Filed: 08/23/2021 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Christopher Peek appeals pro se the dismissal of his second amended
complaint against PHH Mortgage Services Corporation. Without objection, the
district court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation to sua sponte dismiss
Peek’s claims that PHH had violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 1691(a)(1), the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, id. § 1692(e), and the Fair
Credit Reporting Act id. § 1681s-2(c)(1). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b). Later, and
again with no objection, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s second
recommendation to dismiss Peek’s remaining claim that PHH had violated the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605; 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41, for
failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The district court also denied
Peek’s motion for relief from the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We affirm.
The magistrate judge in separate orders warned the parties of the need to
object to each report and recommendation. The orders stated that the failure to
object within 14 days “may [result in its] adopt[ion] as the opinion and order of the
District Court, and . . . the Court of Appeals will deem waived any challenge to
[any unobjected to] factual and legal findings . . ., subject to interests-of-justice
plain error review. 11th Cir. R. 3-1.” Peek never objected.
By failing to object, Peek waived his right to appeal the dismissal of his
second amended complaint. See id. Peek does not dispute that he never objected to
the magistrate judge’s reports and recommendations and instead argues about the
USCA11 Case: 20-14686 Date Filed: 08/23/2021 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
merits of his four claims against PHH. Because Peek failed to object despite being
warned “of all of the consequences on appeal for failing to object,” he has waived
any challenge he could have made to the adverse rulings. See Harrigan v. Metro
Dade Police Dep’t Station #4, 977 F.3d 1185, 1192 (11th Cir. 2020). Although we
may review the rulings of the district court for plain error, Peek does not ask us to
do so. He does not acknowledge the magistrate judge’s involvement in the case,
much less request that we consider his arguments despite his failure to object.
Peek also has abandoned any challenge that he could have made to the
denial of his motion for relief from the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Peek never
even mentions his postjudgment motion in his brief. “[W]e read briefs filed by pro
se litigants liberally,” but Peek’s silence leads us to the inevitable conclusion that
he has abandoned his opportunity to contest the determination that he made no
argument that “alter[ed] the [District] Court’s reasoning or ruling.” See Timson v.
Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Peek’s second amended complaint.
USCA11 Case: 20-14686 Date Filed: 08/23/2021 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --