Shoffner, et al v. CSX Transportation, et al

Filing 162

ORDER Accepting and Adopting 160 Report and Recommendations; denying 135 Plaintiff Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 137 Plaintiff Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting 142 Defendant Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs claims for trespass are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Should parties wish to respond, briefs must be filed no later than August 1, 2014. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 7/11/2014. (AML, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at WINCHESTER
MICHAEL A. SHOFFNER , et al.

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS CORP. and )
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS
)
INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 4:01-cv-54
Judge Mattice

ORDER
On June 23, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge William B. Carter filed his
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 160) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Magistrate Judge Carter recommended that (1)

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 142) as to the issue of damages as to
Plaintiffs’ trespass claims be granted; (2) all trespass claims be dismissed with
prejudice; and (3) the Plaintiffs’ Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. 135, 137) be
denied.1
Defendants filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation. (Doc. 161). However, a review of those “objections” reveals that
Defendants do not object to the recommendations contained in the Magistrate Judge’s
Magistrate Judge Carter specifically found that Defendants had laid its conduit and cables on “Tract 1”
of Plaintiffs’ property without permission and without compensation. (Doc. 160 at 13-14). However,
Magistrate Judge Carter concluded that Plaintiffs, after some 14 years of litigation on this claim, have
failed to provide a genuine and non-speculative computation of damages for the trespass, and have failed
to present any evidence to support their claim for damages. (Id. at 14-20). Magistrate Judge Carter
determined that he need not consider whether Defendants were liable for trespass as to “Tract 2” as
Plaintiffs’ claim for damages related to Tract 2 suffered from the same infirmities as their claims
regarding Tract 1. (Id. at 21-22). Magistrate Judge Carter found that, because Plaintiffs failed to rebut
Defendants contention that they have no evidence to support their claim for damages for trespass,
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the trespass claims must be granted, and Plaintiffs’
Motions for Summary Judgment must be denied. (Id. at 20-23).

1

Report and Recommendation; instead, Defendants merely seek to preserve certain
rights and arguments regarding the trespass claims in the event that the Court declines
to adopt and affirm the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations.2 (Id.). Plaintiffs, on the
other hand, have filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation.3
Nevertheless,

the

Court

has

conducted

a

reviewed

the

Report

and

Recommendation, as well as the record, and it agrees with Magistrate Judge Carter’s
well-reasoned conclusions. Accordingly, The Court hereby ACCEPTS and ADOPTS
Magistrate Judge Carter’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations
pursuant to § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b). Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 142) is hereby GRANTED, Plaintiffs’ claims for trespass are hereby
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and Plaintiffs’ Motions for Summary Judgment
(Docs. 135, 137) are hereby DENIED.
At the same time that it referred the above-discussed Motions for Summary
Judgment to the magistrate judge for a report and recommendation, the Court also
referred Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims under the United
States and Tennessee Constitutions to the magistrate judge. (Doc. 155). Magistrate
Judge Carter mentioned Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims in his Report and

2 Specifically, Defendants object to the Magistrate Judge’s findings on Tract 1 liability for trespass. (Doc.
161). However, Defendants expressly states that “[i]f this Court adopts only the Two Recommendations,
then this Court need not rule on this Objection.” (Id. at 4).

Magistrate Judge Carter specifically advised Plaintiffs that they had 14 days in which to object to the
Report and Recommendation and that failure to do so would waive any rights to appeal. (Doc. 160 at 24
n.7); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-51 (1985) (noting that “[i]t
does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal
conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings”). Even
taking into account the three additional days for service provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), the period in
which Plaintiffs could timely file any objections has now expired.
3

2

Recommendation, but declined to offer an opinion in his current Report and
Recommendation, noting that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss would have to be analyzed
under the standards for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

(Id. at 20-21).

Nonetheless, Magistrate Judge Carter concluded that Plaintiffs failed to submit any
evidence in support of their claims for damages “as to any of their claims, including the
constitutional claims, in the amended complaint[.]” (Id. at 21).
Although Defendants did not move for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ claims
under the United States and Tennessee Constitutions, the Court believes that these
additional claims are subject to dismissal in their entirety for the same reason as
Plaintiffs’ trespass claims – namely, that Plaintiffs have not, and cannot, adequately
demonstrate their damages for any such claim at this stage of the litigation.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 governs motions for summary judgment in
federal court. While typically summary judgment is granted based on motions and
arguments raised in the moving party’s brief, Rule 56(f) provides a mechanism by which
judgment may be granted independent of the motion. In relevant part, Rule 56(f) states
that, after giving the parties notice and a reasonable time to respond, the court may
“grant the motion on grounds not raised by a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f)(2). The
parties are hereby ON NOTICE that the Court intends, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(f), to grant summary judgment on Defendants’ behalf as to Plaintiffs’ constitutional
claims in their entirety for the reasons stated herein. Because the Court intends to grant
summary judgment for Defendants as to these claims, any analysis of Defendants’
pending Motion to Dismiss would be rendered moot, and the Court hereby
WITHDRAWS THE REFERENCE of the Motion to Dismiss from the magistrate
judge.
3

In the event that the parties wish to respond, both parties’ responsive briefs must
be filed within twenty-one days from the entry of this order – that is, no later than
August 1, 2014. The parties’ briefs shall not exceed eight (8) pages in length, and
should otherwise conform with the briefing requirements provided in the Local Rules
for this District. The parties’ briefs, should they wish to file them, should state why they
believe that this Court should or should not grant summary judgment for the Defendant
as to Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims based on the grounds stated in this Order.

SO ORDERED this 11th day of July, 2014.

/s/ Harry S. Mattice, Jr._______
HARRY S. MATTICE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4