Weeks-Israel v. U.S. Army Recruiting Suffolk

Filing 32

ORDER DISMISSING CASE: Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation 29 and fully considered Plaintiff's Response (Doc. No. 30 ), the Court concludes that Plaintiff's objections are without merit and the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 29 ) should be adopted and approved. Accordingly, the Government's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11 ) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. All other pending motions are denied as moot. This Order shall constitute the final judgment in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Signed by District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr on 10/8/2019. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(mg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
DAVID WEEKS-ISRAEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. ARMY RECRUITING SUFFOLK,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:18-cv-00317
JUDGE CAMPBELL
MAGISTRATE JUDGE BROWN

ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No.
29), which was filed on June 13, 2019. Through the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate
Judge recommends that the Government’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) be granted and that
this case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). In response, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension to Follow
Court Recommendations. (Doc. No. 30).
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).

If the Court construes Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension to Follow Court Recommendations
(Doc. No. 30) as objections to the Report and Recommendation, the objections are timely. But
even so, Plaintiff’s Motion does not lodge specific objections to the Report and Recommendation
or otherwise provide a basis to reject or modify the Report and Recommendation.
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and fully considered Plaintiff’s
Response (Doc. No. 30), the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit and the
Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 29) should be adopted and approved. Accordingly, the
Government’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED
without prejudice. All other pending motions are denied as moot.
This Order shall constitute the final judgment in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
It is so ORDERED.
________________________________
WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2