Williams v. Trans Union LLC

Filing 83

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 4/22/2015. (KEK)

FILED
2015 Apr-22 PM 02:12
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

BENNIE WILLIAMS,

}
}
Plaintiff,
}
}
v.
}
}
STUDENT LOAN GUARANTEE }
FOUNDATION OF ARKANSAS,
}
}
Defendant.
}

Case No.: 5:12-cv-02940-JHE

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On March 17, 2015, Magistrate Judge John England entered a report and
recommendation, in which he recommended that the Court dismiss this action with
prejudice for want of prosecution. (Doc. 79). Neither Mr. Williams nor the
remaining defendant, Student Loan Guarantee Foundation of Arkansas, objected to
the report and recommendation. The Clerk randomly reassigned this case to the
undersigned to review the report and recommendation. (Doc. 80).
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
When a party makes timely objections to a report and recommendation, the district

court “make[s] a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.
When no objections are filed, the district court need not conduct a de novo
review. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also
United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam), cert.
denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984) (“The failure to object to the magistrate’s findings of
fact prohibits an attack on appeal of the factual findings adopted by the district
court except on grounds of plain error or manifest injustice.”) (internal citation
omitted). In Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781 (11th Cir. 2006), the
Eleventh Circuit stated:
Most circuits agree that “[i]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a
district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must
only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record
in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Accident Ins., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quotations omitted);
accord Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir.1999)
(“If no objection or only partial objection is made [to the magistrate
judge’s report], the district court judge reviews those unobjected
portions for clear error.”); United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219,
1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (noting that the “clearly erroneous” standard is
appropriate where there has been no objection to the magistrate
judge’s ruling); Drywall Tapers & Pointers v. Local 530, 889 F.2d
389, 395 (2d Cir. 1989) (“Where a magistrate [judge] has been
appointed to conduct an evidentiary hearing, the district court reviews
the Report and Recommendation under the same clearly erroneous
standard.”) (citing Wooldridge v. Marlene Indus. Corp., 875 F.2d 540,
544 (6th Cir. 1989)).

2

Id. at 784. The Eleventh Circuit does not appear to have expressly held that a
district court should review a report and recommendation for clear error in the
absence of any objections, but other courts in this Circuit use the clear error
standard in the absence of objections. Tauber v. Barnhart, 438 F. Supp. 2d 1366
(N.D. Ga. 2006) (“[I]ssues upon which no specific objections are raised do not so
require de novo review; the district court may therefore accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge,
applying a clearly erroneous standard.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted);
Am. Charities for Reasonable Fundraising Regulation, Inc. v. Pinellas County, 278
F. Supp. 2d 1301, 1307 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (“[W]hen no timely and specific
objections are filed, case law indicates that the court should review the findings
using a clearly erroneous standard.”); Shuler v. Infinity Property & Gas, 2013 WL
1346615, at *1 (Mar. 29, 2013) (portions of a report and recommendation “to
which no objections is filed are reviewed only for clear error”).
The Court has carefully reviewed the record and Magistrate Judge England’s
report and recommendation. (Doc. 79). Applying the clearly erroneous standard,
the Court ADOPTS the March 17, 2015 report and ACCEPTS Judge England’s
recommendation that the Court dismiss this action with prejudice for failure to

3

prosecute.1 The Court will enter a separate order consistent with this memorandum
opinion.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to please mail a copy of this memorandum
opinion to Mr. Williams.
DONE and ORDERED this April 22, 2015.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Before issuing this memorandum opinion, the Court conducted a telephone conference on April
21, 2015 to give Mr. Williams one last opportunity to participate in this action. Counsel for
Student Loan Guarantee Foundation of Arkansas participated in the telephone conference. Mr.
Williams did not participate in the telephone conference. The telephone conference began at
3:30 p.m. The Court waited until 3:40 p.m. to conclude the telephone conference. A transcript
of the telephone conference is available upon request.
4