Richardson v. Russell et al

Filing 55

ORDER: The plaintiff's Objections 52 are OVERRULED. The court ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation 49 . The plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Judgment against defendant Cashbox Machine is DENIED with leave to refile after th e adjudication of his count for libel against defendants Russell, Elrod, and Stroud. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 5/19/16. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JAMES A. RICHARDSON, JR.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.

ED RUSSELL, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil No. 3:15-CV-869
Judge Aleta A. Trauger

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On April 25, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
(Docket No. 49), which recommends that the Motion for Default Judgment as to defendant
Cashbox Machine (Docket No. 32) filed by the plaintiff, James A. Richardson, Jr., be denied
without prejudice. Richardson then filed a document entitled “Plaintiff Answer to Court’s
Recommendation” (Docket No. 52) within the period allowed for the filing of Objections.1
Richardson’s filing contains no substantive response relevant to the R&R. Rather, it
merely is a short restatement of Richardson’s claims. Indeed, it does not even mention Cashbox
Machine, the subject of the Motion for Default Judgment and the R&R. Even if viewed as
“Objections,” this commentary is not specific to the R&R and is, therefore, overruled. Even if

1

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).

1

the court were to view Richardson’s pro se submission as a general objection to the entire R&R,
“a general objection to the entirety of the magistrate judge’s report has the same effect as would a
failure to object.” Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir.
1991).
For these reasons,
1.

The plaintiff’s Objections (Docket No. 52) are OVERRULED.

2.

The court ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Docket
No. 49).

3.

The plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment against defendant Cashbox Machine
is DENIED with leave to refile after the adjudication of his count for libel against
defendants Russell, Elrod, and Stroud.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Enter this 19th day of May 2016.

____________________________
ALETA A. TRAUGER
United States District Judge

2