Jackson v. Covenant Transport et al

Filing 61

ORDER: To the extent that pltf's 58 filing constitutes objections, they are OVERRULED and the Magistrate Judge's 55 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and made the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this court. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute, with no fees or costs assessed against pltf. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 11/22/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(rd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JERRI LEIGH JACKSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
COVENANT TRANSPORT,
Defendant.

Civil No. 3:09-0614
Judge Trauger
Magistrate Judge Bryant

ORDER
On October 7, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket
No. 55), to which the pro se plaintiff has filed a lengthy document that the court interprets as an
attempt to object to the Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 58), and to which to the
defendant has filed a Response (Docket No. 59).1
The Magistrate Judge’s recommended ruling relates to a dispositive matter. Therefore,
pursuant to Rule 72(b), FED. R. CIV. P., and 28 U.S. C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court must review de

1

After the preparation of this ruling but before its entry, the plaintiff made another filing
entitled “Motion of Opposition to Dismissal” (Docket No. 60), which is a reply to the
defendant’s Response (Docket No. 59). In this filing, the plaintiff maintains that, “I am now
back & we need to proceed. This has made all of you angry–this last packet of info from me.
Now you know I have a case!” (Docket No. 60 at 8) She maintains that her mailing address is
still the post office box in Louisville, Kentucky, but claims that she did not receive certain filings
in this case. She argues, “I cannot be held responsible for or against a prosecution angle if she
did not sign for those documents.” (Id. at 11) She maintains that scheduling conferences and
depositions must now be done “in person,” “from scratch” and furnishes two phone numbers
where she may be reached. Nothing in this filing changes this court’s ruling. The plaintiff has
an obligation to keep the court informed of her address and to receive documents and orders filed
in the case. The plaintiff has been out of touch with the court and the defendant for months on
end since the filing of this case in 2009, and her last-minute efforts to be excused from this
pattern of behavior are without merit. Her alternative at this point is to appeal this court’s
dismissal of her case to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in a timely fashion.
1

novo any portion of the Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is made.
United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001); Massey v. City of Ferndale, 7 F.3d
506, 510 (6th Cir. 1993). Objections must be specific; an objection to the report in general is not
sufficient and constitutes a waiver of further review. See Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th
Cir. 1995). The plaintiff has filed several hundred pages of rambling discourse, newspaper
articles and other documents that do not constitute specific objections to the Report and
Recommendation. Therefore, the court cannot conduct a de novo review of the specific
objections to the Report and Recommendation because there are none. The plaintiff has
identified no factual or legal reason why the court should reject the Report and
Recommendation, which thoroughly and competently addresses whether or not the plaintiff’s
case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b), FED. R. CIV. P. For that
reason, to the extent that the plaintiff’s filing constitutes objections to the Report and
Recommendation, they are OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 55)
is ACCEPTED and made the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this court. For the
reasons expressed therein, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Rule
41(b), FED. R. CIV.P., for failure to prosecute, with no fees or costs assessed against the plaintiff.
It is so ORDERED.
Enter this 22nd day of November 2011.

________________________________
ALETA A. TRAUGER
U.S. District Judge

2