Watson v. Rentenbach Engineering, Construction Division et al

Filing 37

ORDER that the Court ACCEPTS in part and REJECTS in part the R&R 34 and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants Rentenbach Engineering, Construction Division and Rentenbach Constructors, Incorporated, and Carol Jamersons Moti on for Judgment on the ERISA Administrative Record 30 . Plaintiffs state-law claims are REMANDED to the Chancery Court for Knox County, Tennessee for that courts consideration and determination. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by Chief District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 3/28/13. (c/m) (ABF) Modified on 3/28/2013 (ABF).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
MARILYN S. WATSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
RENTENBACH ENGINEERING COMPANY,
CONSTRUCTION DIVISION,
RENTENBACH CONSTRUCTORS, INC.,
KIMBERLY MICHELLE HAMMONTREE,
CAROL JAMERSON, and
AUTUMN ALEXANDER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.: 3:09-CV-150
(VARLAN/SHIRLEY)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This action is before the Court for consideration of the Report and
Recommendation entered by United States Magistrate Judge C. Clifford Shirley, Jr., on
March 8, 2013 [Doc. 34] (the “R&R”). Magistrate Judge Shirley recommends that
Defendants

Rentenbach

Engineering,

Construction

Division

and

Rentenbach

Constructors, Incorporated, and Carol Jamerson’s Motion for Judgment on the ERISA1
Administrative Record [Doc. 30] be granted and that the claims against defendants
Rentenbach Engineering Construction Division, Rentenbach Constructors, Inc.
(“Rentenbach”) and Carol Jamerson (“Jamerson”) be dismissed with prejudice.

1

ERISA is the acronym for the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. §§
1001, et seq.

Although plaintiff filed a timely objection to the R&R [Doc. 36],2 plaintiff did not
file a timely response to the motion prior to issuance of the R&R. Plaintiff therefore
“waived any objections to the motion, and, thus, the recommendation.”

See MW

Mapleleaf Partners, LLC v. Fifth Third Bank, Inc., No. 5:09–380–KKC, 2010 WL
5463299, at *1 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 22, 2010) (finding that certain parties waived objections to
a motion and the related recommendation because, despite orders from the magistrate
judge that they respond to the motion, they failed to respond to the motion and failed to
appear at a hearing held by the magistrate judge on the motion); see also E.D. Tenn. L.R.
7.2 (“Failure to respond to a motion may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the
relief sought.”). Indeed, failing to respond to a motion referred to a magistrate judge and
then opposing the motion in an objection to a report and recommendation issued by the
magistrate judge circumvents the entire referral process. Plaintiff’s objection [Doc. 36] is
therefore OVERRULED.
When reviewing a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, the Court
“may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court has reviewed the R&R and the underlying motion, as well
as the relevant law, and finds that Magistrate Judge Shirley appropriately considered and
determined that defendant Rentenbach did not violate its fiduciary duty to plaintiff with
respect to 29 U.S.C. § 1055, that Jamerson’s performance was purely a perfunctory,
2

The time for responding to the objection has not yet passed, but the Court finds a
response would not aid the Court. The Court therefore rules on the objection before the deadline
for a response. See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 7.2.
2

ministerial function and that she was not a fiduciary, and that plaintiff’s action under 29
U.S.C. § 1109 is not authorized. It thus agrees that these claims should be dismissed with
prejudice.
But, after reviewing the record, the Court finds it appropriate to reject the
recommendation of Magistrate Judge Shirley in one respect. Magistrate Judge Shirley
determined that plaintiff’s negligence claim against Jamerson is preempted by ERISA
[See Doc. 34 p. 11–14]. He noted, however, that the issue was a “close call” and found
defendants’ argument persuasive “[b]ecause the Plaintiff failed to articulate any argument
on her behalf” [Id. p. 14]. Given the circumstances concerning plaintiff’s counsel set
forth in plaintiff’s objection [see Doc. 36], and the fact that state-law claims still exist
against defendants Autumn Alexander and Kimberly Michelle Hammontree, the Court
rejects this portion of the R&R. Consequently, and because there are no longer any
claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction, the Court finds it appropriate to
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and remand all of plaintiff’s state-law
claims to the state court in which this action was commenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).
In sum, for the reasons explained herein, the Court hereby ACCEPTS in part and
REJECTS in part the R&R [Doc. 34] and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part
Defendants

Rentenbach

Engineering,

Construction

Division

and

Rentenbach

Constructors, Incorporated, and Carol Jamerson’s Motion for Judgment on the ERISA
Administrative Record [Doc. 30]. Plaintiff’s state-law claims are REMANDED to the

3

Chancery Court for Knox County, Tennessee for that court’s consideration and
determination. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Thomas A. Varlan
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ENTERED AS A JUDGMENT
s/ Debra C. Poplin
CLERK OF COURT

4