Hobson v. Mattis

Filing 67

ORDER: Plaintiff's Request to Add Documents to the Record 64 is GRANTED.Having fully considered Plaintiff's objections, the Court concludes they are without merit, and that the Report and Recommendation 61 should be adopted and approved . Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 46 is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED. Plaintiff's constructive discharge claim and any claim contained in Administrative Complaint #003 is DISMISSED. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 3/22/19. (xc: Pro se party by regular mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt) Modified on 3/22/2019 (dt).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

FAYE RENNELL HOBSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

PATRICK M. SHANAHAN,
Acting Secretary, Department of
Defense,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:17-cv-01485
JUDGE CAMPBELL
MAGISTRATE JUDGE HOLMES

ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No.
61), recommending the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
No. 46). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge determined: (1) Plaintiff’s claims for discrimination
based on physical and mental disabilities and race, and for retaliation (Administrative Claim #144)
were timely filed; and (2) Plaintiff’s constructive discharge claim (Administrative Claim #003) was
not timely filed, and equitable tolling did not apply.
Plaintiff has filed Objections (Doc. No. 62), a Declaration (Doc. No. 63), a Request to Add
Documents to the Record (Doc. No. 64), and a Response (Doc. No. 66) to Defendant’s filing (Doc.
No. 65). Plaintiff’s Request to Add Documents to the Record (Doc. No. 64) is GRANTED.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.02, a district court reviews de novo any
portion of a report and recommendation to which a specific objection is made. United States v.
Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001). General or conclusory objections are insufficient. See
Zimmerman v. Cason, 354 F. Appx. 228, 230 (6th Cir. 2009). Thus, “only those specific objections

to the magistrate’s report made to the district court will be preserved for appellate review.” Id.
(quoting Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987)). In conducting
the review, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Plaintiff’s filings include numerous complaints of false statements, perjury, obstruction of
justice, and other serious allegations directed at officials at the Department of Defense, and other
administrative employees. Some of Plaintiff’s aspersions are directed at the Magistrate Judge and
the Clerk of Court. Culled down to the contentions relevant to the conclusions in the Report and
Recommendation, Plaintiff appears to argue that the Magistrate Judge applied the wrong appeal
deadlines in reaching her decision, but Plaintiff has failed to cite relevant authority for her argument.
Under these circumstances, the Court finds Plaintiff’s argument to be without merit. Plaintiff’s
objections fail to state viable grounds to challenge the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, or
otherwise provide a basis to reject or modify the Report and Recommendation.
Having fully considered Plaintiff’s objections, the Court concludes they are without merit,
and that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted and approved. Accordingly,
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 46) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED. Plaintiff’s
constructive discharge claim and any claim contained in Administrative Complaint #003 is
DISMISSED.
It is so ORDERED.

_______________________________
WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2