Anderson v. Punjab Inc. et al

Filing 34

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 30 , filed March 28, 2017] is ADOPTED as this Courts findings of fact and conclusions of law. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Visiting Chief Judge Denise Page Hood on 4/18/2017. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JEFFREY ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:16-cv-02635
Hon. Denise Page Hood

v.
PUNJAB INC. and KWIK SAK
REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, LLC,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Joe B. Brown’s Report
and Recommendation. [#30] Plaintiff Jeffrey Anderson, currently proceeding in pro
per following the withdrawal of his counsel and Plaintiff’s failure to obtain new
counsel, filed this action on October 7, 2016, alleging that Defendants violated his
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Magistrate Judge recommends
that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s cause of action, without prejudice, for failure to
prosecute and obey Court orders. Neither party filed an objection to the Report and
Recommendation.
Judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited in scope to
determining whether the Commissioner employed the proper legal criteria in reaching

his conclusion. Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383 (6th Cir. 1984). The credibility
findings of an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) must not be discarded lightly and
should be accorded great deference. Hardaway v. Secretary of Health and Human
Services, 823 F.2d 922, 928 (6th Cir. 1987). A district court’s review of an ALJ’s
decision is not a de novo review. The district court may not resolve conflicts in the
evidence nor decide questions of credibility. Garner, 745 F.2d at 397. The decision
of the Commissioner must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence, even
if the record might support a contrary decision or if the district court arrives at a
different conclusion. Smith v. Secretary of HHS, 893 F.2d 106, 108 (6th Cir. 1984);
Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986).
The Court has had an opportunity to review this matter and finds that the
Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusions for the proper reasons. Finding no
error in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court adopts the
Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Furthermore, as neither party has raised
an objection to the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the parties have
waived any further objections to the Report and Recommendation. Smith v. Detroit
Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987) (a party’s failure
to file any objections waives his or her right to further appeal); Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
2

For the reasons stated above,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 30, filed
March 28, 2017] is ADOPTED as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of
law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice.
s/Denise Page Hood
DENISE PAGE HOOD
United States District Judge
Sitting by Special Designation

DATED: April 18, 2017

3