Robinson v. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant.
____________________________/
Case No. 1:25-cv-933
HON. JANE M. BECKERING
OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are Defendant PennyMac Loan Services, LLC (PennyMac)’s
objections (ECF No. 33) to the Magistrate Judge’s March 19, 2026 Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 32). 	Plaintiff Michael Robinson did not file any response to the objections. 	For the
following reasons, the objections are denied, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is stricken, and
Plaintiff is required to effectuate service on PennyMac, as described in the Report and
Recommendation and herein.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this case in August 2025 with the filing of a Complaint
against PennyMac Loan Services, LLC (PennyMac). 	The case was referred to the Magistrate
Judge for handling of all nondispositive matters and for submission of recommendations on
dispositive motions (Order of Reference, ECF No. 7). The Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff’s
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, indicating, in pertinent part, that “[a]ny pleadings
herein served by the United States Marshal shall be at the expense of the United States
Case 1:25-cv-00933-JMB-MV ECF No. 34, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/04/26 Page 1
of 6

2
government” (Order, ECF No. 8). 	Following this Court’s decision on the Magistrate Judge’s
screening Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13), two claims remain: Count III (Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act) and Count IV (Breach of Contract), which challenge irregularities
during the mortgage foreclosure process (11/18/2025 Op. & Order, ECF No. 19).
Plaintiff was required to serve Defendant PennyMac in accordance with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(h), “by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a
managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive
service of process.” FED . R. C IV. P. 4(h)(B). Additionally, Plaintiff was required to mail a copy
of the summons and complaint. See id. The relevant Process Receipt and Return indicates that
service was made on a Call Center Supervisor (ECF No. 15).
On November 14, 2025, PennyMac, who filed a limited appearance, filed a motion to
dismiss based on improper service (ECF No. 17). Plaintiff filed a response, indicating that he had
no control over service of the summons and Complaint after the Court ordered the U.S. Marshals
Service to perfect service on his behalf (ECF No. 22). PennyMac filed a reply (ECF No. 26), and
Plaintiff moved for leave to file a sur-reply (ECF No. 28).
Additionally, on February 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, naming
PennyMac and two additional Defendants, as well as new claims (ECF No. 30).
On March 19, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R,
ECF No. 32), recommending that this Court grant the motion for leave to file a sur-reply, deny the
motion to dismiss, and provide Plaintiff with a 45-day period to effectuate service. The Magistrate
Judge indicated that while Plaintiff should have known that service was improper and could have
supplied an appropriate address, PennyMac has actual notice of the lawsuit and would not be
Case 1:25-cv-00933-JMB-MV ECF No. 34, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/04/26 Page 2
of 6

3
prejudiced if the Court provides Plaintiff additional latitude in correcting the service of process
defect (id. at PageID.221–222). The objections at bar followed.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
28 U.S.C. § 636 governs the jurisdiction and powers of magistrate judges. See also F ED.
R. C IV. P. 72; W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.1. Magistrate judges generally have authority to enter orders
regarding non-dispositive pre-trial motions, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), but they must submit
report and recommendations on case-dispositive matters, see § 636(b)(1)(B). The statute further
provides that within fourteen days after being served with a copy of a magistrate judge’s report
and recommendations on a case-dispositive matter, “any party may serve and file written
objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.” 	28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 	An objecting party is required to “specifically identify the portions of the
proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objections are made and the basis for such
objections.” 	W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). 	Any party may respond to another party’s objections
within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Id. The court’s task is to “make
a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. “[T]he court may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may
also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Case 1:25-cv-00933-JMB-MV ECF No. 34, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/04/26 Page 3
of 6

4
B. Discussion
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. In its objections, PennyMac argues that the Magistrate
Judge’s own findings of non-diligence by Plaintiff should prompt this Court to reject the Report
and Recommendation and instead grant dismissal (Obj., ECF No. 33 at PageID.229). 	As
recognized by the Magistrate Judge, how a district court should respond to a motion to enlarge the
time for service of process depends on the unique circumstances of each case, including (1)
whether an extension of time would be well beyond the timely service of process; (2) whether an
extension of time would prejudice the defendant other than the inherent prejudice in having to
defend the suit; (3) whether the defendant had actual notice of the lawsuit; (4) whether the court's
refusal to extend time for service substantially prejudices the plaintiff, i.e., would the plaintiff's
lawsuit be time-barred; (5) whether the plaintiff had made any good faith efforts to effect proper
service of process or was diligent in correcting any deficiencies; (6) whether the plaintiff is a pro
se litigant deserving of additional latitude to correct defects in service of process; and (7) whether
any equitable factors exist that might be relevant to the unique circumstances of the case. United
States v. Oakland Physicians Med. Ctr., LLC, 44 F.4th 565, 569 (6th Cir. 2022). 	Whether to
enlarge the timeframe is a matter that lies within the court’s discretion. Id. (citing Henderson v.
United States, 517 U.S. 654, 662 (1996)).
PennyMac argues that when these factors are “properly” weighed, they compel dismissal
(Objs., ECF No. 33 at PageID.230–234). 	While PennyMac would have balanced the factors
differently, its argument fails to demonstrate any factual or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s
analysis or ultimate exercise of discretion to recommend denial of PennyMac’s motion to dismiss.
Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the Opinion
of this Court as to PennyMac’s motion to dismiss.
Case 1:25-cv-00933-JMB-MV ECF No. 34, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/04/26 Page 4
of 6

5
Plaintiff’s submission of an amended complaint does not alter this conclusion. A plaintiff
“cannot extend the service of process period with respect to an already-named defendant by filing
an amended complaint.” 	Harris v. City of Cleveland, 7 F. App’x 452, 456 (6th Cir. 2001).
Moreover, there does not appear to be any indication that Plaintiff received PennyMac’s written
consent to amend his Complaint, nor did Plaintiff receive leave of court to do so. Because Plaintiff
failed to comply with Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the First Amended
Complaint is improperly filed and will be stricken.
The service methods of Rule 4 continue to apply to PennyMac. Plaintiff has 45 days to
properly serve PennyMac with a summons and the Complaint under the service methods of Rule
4(h), as outlined in the Report and Recommendation and herein.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply. 	As for the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation to grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply, the Court will instead
simply dismiss the motion as moot inasmuch as no proposed sur-reply was attached to the motion
for the Court’s review. Accordingly, this Court declines to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s additional
recommendation to grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave.
Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF No. 33) are DENIED and the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 32) is APPROVED IN PART and
ADOPTED IN PART as the Opinion of the Court, as described herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply (ECF No.
28) is DISMISSED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 17) is DENIED for
the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.
Case 1:25-cv-00933-JMB-MV ECF No. 34, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/04/26 Page 5
of 6

6
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 30) is
STRICKEN.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 45 days from the date of this Opinion and
Order, Plaintiff shall properly serve Defendant PennyMac with a summons and the Complaint.
This case proceeds on the claims in Counts III and IV of Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1).
Dated: May 4, 2026
JANE M. BECKERING
United States District Judge
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
Case 1:25-cv-00933-JMB-MV ECF No. 34, PageID.<pageID> Filed 05/04/26 Page 6
of 6