Carson v. U.S. Office of Special Counsel

Filing 35

ORDER overruling 33 plaintiff's objections to and accepting in whole 31 the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation; denying 23 plaintiff's Motion for litigation costs; and denying as moot 32 plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by District Judge Thomas W Phillips on December 8, 2011. (AYB)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE JOSEPH P. CARSON, Petitioner, ) ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL, ) Respondent. ) No. 3:10-CV-57 (Phillips) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On October 17, 2011, the Honorable C. Clifford Shirley, United States Magistrate Judge, filed an 4-page Report and Recommendation (R&R) [Doc. 31] in which he recommended that plaintiff’s motion for litigation costs be denied. This matter is presently before the court on plaintiff’s objections to the R&R [Doc. 33]. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court has now undertaken a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which plaintiff objects. After doing so, the court readily concludes that Magistrate Judge Shirley has thoroughly and correctly analyzed the legal issues presented in plaintiff’s motion for litigation costs. Thus, any further comment by the court is unnecessary and would be repetitive. In sum, the court finds that plaintiff has failed to show that he “substantially prevailed,” that is, he has not received a judicial order, an enforceable written agreement or consent decree in his favor. Nor has plaintiff demonstrated a public benefit derived from the case. Accordingly, plaintiff’s objections [Doc. 33] are hereby OVERRULED in their entirety whereby the R&R [Doc. 31] is ACCEPTED IN WHOLE. Plaintiff’s motion for litigation costs [Doc. 23] is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate cases [Doc. 32] is DENIED AS MOOT. ENTER: s/ Thomas W. Phillips United States District Judge -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?