Valentine v. Ford et al

Filing 27

ORDER: Plaintiff's filing fails to state viable grounds to challenge the Magistrate Judge's conclusion, nor does it otherwise provide a basis to reject or modify the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation i s adopted and approved, the motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 24 ) filed by Defendant Tennessee Board of Parole is GRANTED, and the Tennessee Board of Parole is TERMINATED as a defendant in this action. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 11/22/2019. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DIVISION

GREGORY VALENTINE,
Plaintiff,
v.

COLUMBA McHALE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 1:18-cv-00021
JUDGE CAMPBELL
MAGISTRATE JUDGE FRENSLEY

ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No.
24), recommending the Court grant the motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 20) filed by Defendant
Tennessee Board of Parole. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Defendant should
be dismissed from this action because Plaintiff failed to state a claim against it. The Report advised
the parties that any objections must be filed within 14 days of service. In response, Plaintiff filed
“Rule 5 Reply to Motion of Respondent Answer Date of 7-22-19” (Doc. No. 25). The Court will
construe the filing as an objection.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.02, a district court reviews de novo any
portion of a report and recommendation to which a specific objection is made. United States v.
Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001). General or conclusory objections are insufficient. See
Zimmerman v. Cason, 354 F. Appx. 228, 230 (6th Cir. 2009). Thus, “only those specific objections
to the magistrate’s report made to the district court will be preserved for appellate review.” Id.
(quoting Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987)). In conducting
the review, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

In his filing, Plaintiff argues the failure to properly serve Defendant was due to the Clerk of
Court’s failure to provide him with the appropriate documents. Although Defendant’s motion to
dismiss based its request for dismissal on inadequate service of process as well as failure to state a
claim, the Magistrate Judge did not base his conclusion on inadequate service. Thus, Plaintiff’s
filing fails to state viable grounds to challenge the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion, nor does it
otherwise provide a basis to reject or modify the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the
Report and Recommendation is adopted and approved, the motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 24) filed
by Defendant Tennessee Board of Parole is GRANTED, and the Tennessee Board of Parole is
TERMINATED as a defendant in this action.
It is so ORDERED.

_______________________________
WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2