Adams v. Yates Services Nissan

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The magistrate judge's recommendation, though appearing to be harsh, is well grounded in the factual history of this case, and dismissal with prejudice is fully warranted. For these reasons, the Report and Recommendation is 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 Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 19 ) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 5/5/2016. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh) Modified on 5/6/2016 (eh).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
TONIA Y. ADAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
YATES SERVICES NISSAN,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 3:15-cv-00490
Judge Trauger

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On March 28, 2016, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket
No. 26), to which the plaintiff has responded by filing a letter that the court will consider a
timely objection to the Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 29). The Report and
Recommendation recommends the dismissal with prejudice of this case, due to the plaintiff’s
failure to respond to discovery, to cooperate during the discovery phase of this case, and to
follow court orders. This Report and Recommendation relates to a dispositive motion.
When a party files objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
regarding a dispositive motion, the district judge must review de novo any portion of the report
and recommendation to which objections are properly lodged. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) & (C). In conducting its review, the district court “may accept, reject, or
modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

The court may decline to review any objections that are not “proper.” To qualify as
proper, “objections must be clear enough to enable the district court to discern those issues that
are dispositive and contentious.” Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995). “The filing
of vague, general, or conclusory objections does not meet the requirement of specific objections
and is tantamount to a complete failure to object.” Cole v. Yukins, 7 F.App’x. 354, 356 (6th Cir.
2001) (citing Miller, 50 F.3d at 380). The Sixth Circuit has explained that this specificity
requirement is necessary in order to conserve judicial resources. See Howard v. Sec’y of Health
& Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 509 (6th Cir. 1991) (“A general objection to the entirety of the
magistrate’s report has the same effects as would a failure to object,” and requiring review of
such an objection would “mak[e] the initial reference to the magistrate useless. The functions of
the district court are effectively duplicated as both the magistrate and the district court perform
identical tasks. This duplication of time and effort wastes judicial resources rather than saving
them, and runs contrary to the purposes of the Magistrates Act.”)
The plaintiff’s “objection” letter constitutes a general objection to the dismissal of her
case; it contains no specific objections to the findings of the magistrate judge. It therefore does
not constitute a “proper” objection and will be overruled.
The magistrate judge’s recommendation, though appearing to be harsh, is well grounded
in the factual history of this case, and dismissal with prejudice is fully warranted. For these
reasons, the Report and Recommendation is 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 Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 19) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED
with prejudice.
It is so ORDERED.
ENTER this 5th day of May 2016.

ALETA A. TRAUGER
U.S. District Judge