Bostic v. Biggs et al

Filing 178

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED and the Report and Recommendation is hereby ACCEPTED and made the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this court. For the reasons expressed therein, it i s hereby ORDERED that defendant Metro's Motion to Remand (Docket No. 128 ) is GRANTED, and this case is remanded to the Circuit Court for Davidson County, Tennessee, from whence it was removed. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 2/15/2017.(xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail. Circuit Court by regular mail)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JAMES E. BOSTIC,
Plaintiff,
v.

SHARA BIGGS, ET AL.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 3:14-cv-01068
Judge Trauger

Defendant.
ORDER
On January 13, 2017, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket
No. 169), to which the pro se plaintiff has filed objections (Docket Nos. 175, 177).
The magistrate judge recommends the granting of defendant Metropolitan Government of
Nashville and Davidson County’s Motion to Remand (Docket No. 128), which is a dispositive
matter. 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); Massey v. City of
Ferndale, 7 F.3d 506, 510 (6th Cir. 1993). Objections must be specific; an objection tot he 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).
The plaintiff’s objections do not relate to the legal principles upon which the magistrate
judge based her ruling. He argues the merits of his case and asserts that he is entitled to a jury
trial, all of which arguments can be made to the Davidson County Circuit Court where the
plaintiff chose to originally file this case. The fact remains that defendant Metro, served late in
the case, does not agree to the removal and is entitled to have the case remanded.
For the reasons expressed herein, the plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED and the
Report and Recommendation is hereby ACCEPTED and made the findings of fact and
conclusions of law of this court. For the reasons expressed therein, it is hereby ORDERED that

defendant Metro’s Motion to Remand (Docket No. 128) is GRANTED, and this case is
remanded to the Circuit Court for Davidson County, Tennessee, from whence it was removed.
Defendant Metro’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 105) is DENIED AS MOOT. Given this
remand, the Clerk shall term all other pending motions.
It is so ORDERED.
ENTER this 14th day of February 2017.

________________________________
ALETA A. TRAUGER
U.S. District Judge