Smith v. Corporation for National and Community Service

Filing 24

ORDER granting 2 Motion to Dismiss; adopting 21 Report and Recommendation on 21 Report and Recommendation, 2 Motion to Dismiss,. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (CPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TRACY SMITH,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-13700
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

v.
CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND
COMMUNITY SERVICE,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [Doc. 22];
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. 2];
AND DISMISSING THIS CASE WITH PREJUDICE

Tracy Smith (“Smith”) filed suit against Corporation for National and Community
Service (“CNCS”). She alleges discrimination and wrongful termination from the
AmeriCorps Volunteer in Service to America program administered by CNCS. CNCS
filed a motion to dismiss. The Court referred that motion to Magistrate Judge Anthony P.
Patti.
On June 14, 2017, Magistrate Judge Patti issued a Report and Recommendation
[Doc. 21] recommending that the Court GRANT Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. [Doc. 2]
Smith filed timely objections to the R & R [Doc. 22], which are now before the
Court. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, which is well-written, wellreasoned and well-supported by the cited authorities.
When a party properly objects to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, the Court must conduct a de novo review of those portions pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Bellmore-Byrne v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2016
1 

WL 5219541, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 22, 2016). Only specific objections are entitled to a
de novo review. Mira v. Smithall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986). A non-specific
objection “that does nothing more than disagree with a magistrate judge’s
determination, ‘without explaining the source of the error,’ is not considered a valid
objection.” Bellmore-Byrn, 2016 WL 5219541, at *1 (quoting Howard v. Sec’y of Health
and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)).
In Smith’s objections, she argues that: (1) Magistrate Judge Patti plotted to find in
favor of the CNCS because it is a government agency; (2) she has evidence to prove
her claims; and, (3) she has email and phone records to prove she contacted CNCS
about the alleged discrimination. Smith does nothing more than disagree with
Magistrate Judge Patti’s determination. She does not point to any particular portions of
the record that she objects to or specify why the Magistrate Judge’s findings were
wrong. See Bellmore-Byrn, 2016 WL 5219541, at *1.
After a de novo review of the motion and related filings, the Court finds that the R
& R is well-reasoned and that Magistrate Judge Patti’s recommendation to grant the
motion to dismiss is sound.
The Court ADOPTS the R & R [Doc. 21], GRANTS Defendant’s motion to
dismiss [Doc. 2], and DISMISSES this action WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS ORDERED. 

S/Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: August 11, 2017

2