UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

KIMBERLY BOYD-HARRIS, Civil Action No. 24-13175 Plaintiff, Terrence G. Berg v. United States District Judge

F STREET INVESTMENTS, LLC, David R. Grand United States Magistrate Judge Defendant. __________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 21)

In this federal-question action,1 pro se plaintiff Kimberly Boyd-Harris (“Boyd- Harris”) brings suit against F Street Investments, LLC (“F Street”), asserting claims related F Street’s alleged predatory lending practices. On January 17, 2025, F Street filed a motion to dismiss Boyd-Harris’ complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. (ECF No. 21). F Street’s motion was fully briefed (ECF Nos. 25, 26), and the Court scheduled oral argument for June 24, 2025 (ECF No. 28). A couple of weeks after the Court set the oral argument date, the parties filed a “Stipulated Order to Stay Case,” in which they advised the Court that they “have agreed to the form of a confidential settlement agreement, which, once completed, will resolve this dispute, and result in a dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims[.]” (ECF No. 32). Their

1 This case has been referred to the undersigned for all pretrial purposes pursuant to

(b). (ECF No. 11). proposed order was entered on June 20, 2025, and the parties indicated that they would “provide a report to the Court on August 8th 2025 regarding the result of the settlement agreement.” (ECF No. 35).

On August 8, 2025, the parties filed a “Notice of Report,” advising the Court that Boyd-Harris “has retained counsel for the limited capacity of negotiating settlement”; that they are discussing “a revision to the original settlement agreement”; and that they “anticipate that a revised settlement will result in a resolution of this matter with 60 days[.]” (ECF No. 36). Further, the parties ask the Court to schedule a status conference in 75 days.

(Id.). In light of the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that F Street’s motion to dismiss or alternatively, for summary judgment (ECF No. 21) be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. In the event the parties have not submitted a stipulated order of dismissal by October 17, 2025, the Court will hold a telephonic status conference with them on

October 23, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. F Street will remain free to re-file its dispositive motion in the event a settlement is not consummated.

Dated: August 8, 2025 s/David R. Grand Ann Arbor, Michigan DAVID R. GRAND United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation, but are required to act within fourteen (14) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in

(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); Howard v. Sec’y of HHS,

(6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters,

(6th Cir. 1981). The 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. See Willis v. Sec’y of HHS,

, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231,

, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. L.R. 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon this magistrate judge.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on August 8, 2025.

s/Eddrey O. Butts EDDREY O. BUTTS Case Manager