Sargent v. Southwest Airlines, Inc.,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 6 Report and Recommendation. For the reasons stated herein, Sargent's objections to the R&R are OVERRULED. The R&R is hereby ADOPTED AND APPROVED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Entry of this Memorandum and Order shall constitute judgment in the case. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 12/12/2012. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
SHANE S. SARGENT,
Case No. 3:11-cv-00715
Judge Aleta A. Trauger
Magistrate Judge Bryant
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On October 30, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (Docket
No. 6) (“R&R”), recommending that the court dismiss the plaintiff’s Complaint (Docket No. 1)
for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The plaintiff, Shane
Sargent, has filed a Response to Court Recommendation (Docket No. 9), which the court
construes as asserting timely objections to the R&R.
When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation regarding a dispositive
pretrial matter, the district court must review de novo any portion of the report and
recommendation to which a specific objection is made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C); 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 will result in waiver of further review. See Miller v.
Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995).
Sargent’s objections to the R&R fail for several reasons. First, the objections are nonspecific, justifying waiver of further review on that basis alone. Second, in asserting these
general objections, Sargent improperly relies on additional materials that exceed the scope of his
Complaint (and his original EEOC charge), apparently to buttress his otherwise insufficient
hostile work environment and retaliation allegations. However, under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard
that governs a frivolity review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the court’s analysis is
confined to the Magistrate Judge’s assessment of the Complaint allegations, with respect to
which Sargent has articulated no viable objections. Third, even if the court were to consider the
additional materials and accept the representations within them as true (other than Sargent’s
generalized arguments), they would not establish a hostile work environment claim or a
Although the court is obligated to deny Sargent’s objections, the court acknowledges that
the presence of a noose in Sargent’s locker room was deplorable and objectively offensive.
Nevertheless, it appears that Southwest Airlines removed the offending noose, investigated the
incident, and reminded all employees of their obligation not to engage in that type of offensive
conduct. The record does not support a finding that this incident created a hostile work
environment or that Sargent faced retaliation for (justifiably) complaining about it. Thus,
notwithstanding Sargent’s admirable effort to collect information relating to his claims and to
present those materials to the court, his claims as alleged must be dismissed.
For the reasons stated herein, Sargent’s objections to the R&R are OVERRULED. The
R&R is hereby ADOPTED AND APPROVED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. Entry of this Memorandum and Order shall constitute judgment in the case.
It is so ORDERED.
Enter this 12th day of December 2012.
ALETA A. TRAUGER
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?