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)

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-