Payne v. State of Tennessee et al

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The record fully supports the magistrate judge's conclusions and her recommendations. Accordingly, the Court hereby OVERRULES the plaintiffs objection to the R&R, ACCEPTS the magistrate judge's r ecommendation in its entirety, and DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The plaintiff's motion for a hearing is DENIED as moot. It is so ORDERED. This is the final judgment for purposes of Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 11/12/2014. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb) Modified text on 11/12/2014 (hb).

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

DAVID R. PAYNE,
Plaintiff,
v.

STATE OF TENNESSEE et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:14-cv-0047
Chief Judge Sharp
Magistrate Judge Griffin

ORDER
Before the Court is the plaintiff’s objection (ECF No. 24) to the Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) (ECF No. 21) filed by Magistrate Judge Juliet Griffin, recommending that the motions to dismiss
(ECF Nos. 7 and 9) filed by defendants State of Tennessee, Tennessee Consolidated Retirement
System, Tennessee Department of Transportation, Tennessee Department of Human Services, Jay
Bruce Saltsman, and Bill E. Whittaker (collectively, the “State Defendants”) and by defendant John
Wayne Allen. The plaintiff has also filed a motion for a hearing (ECF No. 25), presumably to argue the
merits of his objection. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court will overrule the plaintiff’s objection,
accept the R&R, and dismiss this matter. The plaintiff’s motion for hearing will be denied as moot.
I.

Standard of Review
After being served with a magistrate judge’s recommended disposition, any party may, within

fourteen days, “serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The district court must review de novo any portion of the report and
recommendation to which objections are “properly” lodged. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) & (C). In conducting its review, the district court “may accept, reject, or modify the
recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
II.

Discussion
The plaintiff here filed a timely objection to the recommendation that his complaint be dismissed,

but his objection fails to address specifically the magistrate judge’s proposed findings of fact or

2

conclusions of law. Instead, the plaintiff asserts that he needs to conduct discovery, and he requests a
hearing in order to present his evidence of damages to the Court. When, as in this case, the objecting
party has not raised “proper” objections to any portion of the R&R and instead continues to contest the
issue of liability generally, the Court has no obligation to conduct a de novo review of the magistrate
judge’s ruling. See Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d 721, 725 (6th Cir. 2006) (“Overly broad objections do
not satisfy the objections requirement.”), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199
(2007). Cf. Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F. Supp. 2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (“A general objection, or one that
merely restates the arguments previously presented[,] is not sufficient to alert the court to alleged errors
on the part of the magistrate judge.”).
Notwithstanding the insufficiency of the defendant’s objection, the Court has conducted a de novo
review of the R&R and the entire record, and finds that the magistrate judge’s recommendation is
factually sound and legally correct. As Judge Griffin noted, the complaint contains no specific factual
allegations or a basis for the exercise of federal jurisdiction. The plaintiff’s stated grounds for relief merely
hint at the possibility of employment discrimination on the basis of disability and wrongful denial of
medical benefits, as follows:
Predjust in hiring, discrimination in promotion, predjust in promotion, predjust against a
disabled veteran, malace with intent of injury, injury, wrongfull harm @ see EEOC
complaint / department of labor complaint.
(ECF No. 1, at 1 [errors in original].) His “statement of claim” is equally inscrutable:
Long term discrimination from 1984 to present to include influencing at state commision
levels and outside state means. See EEOC complaint and Dept. of Labor complaint.
(Id. at 2 [errors in original].)
Defendant John Wayne Allen moves for dismissal on the grounds that there are no factual
allegations contained anywhere in the complaint that refer to him or support a legal claim for relief against
him. (ECF No. 7.) The State Defendants move for dismissal on the grounds of ineffective service of
process. (ECF No. 9.)
In her R&R, Magistrate Judge Griffin concluded that the claims against the State Defendants
were subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for insufficiency of
process. Judge Griffin also concluded that, irrespective of the issue of service of process, the claims

3

against all defendants were subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim for which
relief may be granted. As Judge Griffin stated: “[T]he Complaint does not contain any factual allegations,
let alone any factual allegations that are directed at the Defendants. Both the Court and the Defendants
must guess at exactly what is being alleged by the plaintiff and what actions each of the Defendants is
alleged to have taken which harmed the plaintiff.” (ECF No. 21, at 6.) Because the complaint fails to
comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a short and plain statement
of a claim showing the entitlement to relief, Judge Griffin recommends dismissal of the complaint in its
entirety, without prejudice.
III.

Conclusion
The record fully supports the magistrate judge’s conclusions and her recommendations.

Accordingly, the Court hereby OVERRULES the plaintiff’s objection to the R&R, ACCEPTS the
magistrate judge’s recommendation in its entirety, and DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The plaintiff’s motion for a hearing is DENIED as moot.
It is so ORDERED.
This is the final judgment for purposes of Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

KEVIN H. SHARP
Chief Judge
United States District Court