Mayberry v. Humphreys County et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 106 Motion for Summary Judgment. The R&R is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED in all respects. The defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 106 ) is GRANTED, and this action is hereby DISMISSED WI TH PREJUDICE in its entirety. It is so ORDERED. This is the final order in this matter for purposes of Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 7/22/2013. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
CHRIS SCOTT MAYBERRY,
HUMPHREYS COUNTY, et al.,
Case No. 3:11-cv-00855
Magistrate Judge Griffin
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Chris Scott Mayberry, proceeding pro se, filed his complaint in this action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”). By order entered September 16,
2011 (ECF No. 6), this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Juliet Griffin for entry of a scheduling
order for the management of the case, to dispose or recommend disposition of any pretrial motions under
28 U.S.C. § 626(b)(1)(A) and (B), and to conduct further proceedings, if necessary, under Rule 72(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On December 21, 2012, defendants Humphreys County, Tennessee, Chris Davis, Becky
Cunningham, Mike Mealler, Teddy Hooper, Tammy Ross, Will Hooper, Bonnie Robertson, Thelma
Davidson, Theresa Howell, Brent Hubble, Alan Wallace, Greg Ryan, Brian Baker, and David Flowers filed
a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 106) asserting, based on affidavits and supporting
documentations submitted with the motion, that there are no disputed issues of material fact and that they
are entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law. On December 31, 2012, Magistrate Judge Griffin
entered an order granting the plaintiff until February 11, 2013 to file a response to the motion for summary
judgment. The same order further advised the plaintiff that resolution of the motion for summary judgment
would be governed by the standard of review established by Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and that if the plaintiff wished to dispute the facts submitted by the defendants, he was
required to respond to the defendants’ statement of undisputed material facts in accordance with Local
Rule 56.01(c). (ECF No. 117, at 1–2.)
Despite this directive, the plaintiff did not file a response in opposition to the motion for summary
judgment, nor did he request an extension of the deadline for filing a response. The magistrate judge filed
a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) on June 24, 2013 (ECF No. 130), recommending that the motion
be granted in its entirety and that this action be dismissed with prejudice. The magistrate judge also gave
notice to the plaintiff that any objections to the R&R must be filed within fourteen days of service of the
R&R and “must state with particularity the specific portions of this Report and Recommendation to which
objection is made.” (ECF No. 130, at 16.)
On July 9, 2013 the plaintiff has filed a document titled “Motion for Response in Opposition” (ECF
No. 133). This document does not articulate any specific objection to any portion of the R&R, and instead
appears to seek reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s prior denial of the plaintiff’s request for
appointment of counsel. The “motion” states only that it is prepared “by inmate legal assistants at the Lois
M DeBerry Special Needs Facility,” that the assistants “were just made aware of this case and have no
knowledge of any previous legal proceedings prior to this notice” and were therefore “unable to assist this
inmate as we have not had any factual or meaningful discussions with the Petitioner other than to receive
this Report & Recommendation.” (ECF No. 133, at 1–2.)
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court
is required to consider de novo any portion of an R&R to which a party makes a specific objection, and
may then accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the
matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Conversely, the failure to file timely, specific objections
obviates not only de novo district-judge review of the R&R, but all district-judge review. Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985). District judges in this circuit therefore routinely adopt R&Rs without
additional written analysis where the parties have not submitted timely objections. Cf. Vandewege v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:07-cv-471, 2008 WL 205216, at *3 n.3 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 23, 2008).
In this case, the plaintiff did not file a response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment,
and he has neither offered specific objections to the R&R nor requested an extension of the deadline for
submitting particularized objections. Under these circumstances, the court concludes that it has no
obligation to conduct a de novo review, or any review at all, of the claims and evidence presented.
Notwithstanding, the court has reviewed de novo the claims and evidence presented to the magistrate
judge and finds that Magistrate Judge Griffin conducted a thorough review of the factual record,
accurately stated the law applying to the plaintiff’s claims, and appropriately applied the law to the facts to
conclude on the basis of the undisputed material facts that the defendants are entitled to judgment in their
favor as a matter of law.
Accordingly, the R&R is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED in all respects. The defendants’ motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 106) is GRANTED, and this action is hereby DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE in its entirety.
It is so ORDERED.
This is the final order in this matter for purposes of Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil
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?