Hobson v. Hagel

Filing 31

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS : The Report and Recommendation is therefore ACCEPTED and made the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this court. For the reasons expressed therein, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendant's Pa rtial Motion to Dismiss (DE # 14 ) is treated as a partial motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 12(d), Fed. R. Civ. P., and is hereby GRANTED. The claims made by the plaintiff in paragraphs 11 and 15 of her Complaint are DISMISSED WITH PRE JUDICE for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The defendant's motion is DENIED as to the plaintiff's claims of discrimination with regard to her non- selection for the LARS position and the AP position. This case shall be return ed to the magistrate judge for further handling under the original referral order. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 9/15/2015. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified 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
FAYE R. HOBSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHUCK HAGEL,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 3:14-cv-1540
Judge Trauger
Magistrate Judge Bryant

ORDER
On August 17, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
(DE #25), to which the plaintiff has filed “Partial Objections” (DE #29), to which the defendant
has filed a response (DE #30).
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).
The plaintiff does not object to the overall conclusions in the Report and
Recommendation. Her objection is addressed to one sentence where the magistrate judge seems
to speculate that “it is nearly impossible that Plaintiff applied for and was denied selection for
over twenty positions within the limited timeframe required for the filing of EEO complaints
under federal law”. (DE #25 at 7). This statement on the part of the magistrate judge is

surplusage that is not necessary to the findings and conclusions. As such, the plaintiff’s
objection to it does not constitute an objection to the dismissal of certain claims in her Complaint
for which she has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Since it does not go to the
merits of the ruling, the plaintiff’s objection is OVERRULED.
The Report and Recommendation is therefore ACCEPTED and made the findings of fact
and conclusions of law of this court. For the reasons expressed therein, it is hereby ORDERED
that the defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss (DE #14) is treated as a partial motion for
summary judgment pursuant to Rule 12(d), Fed. R. Civ. P., and is hereby GRANTED. The
claims made by the plaintiff in paragraphs 11 and 15 of her Complaint are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The defendant’s motion is DENIED
as to the plaintiff’s claims of discrimination with regard to her non-selection for the LARS
position and the AP position.
This case shall be returned to the magistrate judge for further handling under the original
referral order.
It is so ORDERED.
Enter this 15th day of September 2015.

________________________________
ALETA A. TRAUGER
U.S. District Judge

2