Taylor v. Geithner

Filing 216

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 10-09-15. (Mays, Samuel)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

SHERYL TAYLOR,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
JACOB J. LEW,
Secretary of the Treasury,
Defendant.

No. 08-2735-SHM-cgc

ORDER

On

October

“Plaintiff”)

22,

filed

2008,

her

pro

Sheryl
se

Taylor

Complaint

(“Taylor”

against

or

Defendant

Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Treasury
(“Geithner”). 1
Complaint.

On January 20, 2009, Taylor filed an Amended

(ECF No. 5.)

The operative complaint is her Second

Amended Complaint, filed on June 1, 2009.
sought

relief

U.S.C.

§

(Id.

at

for

retaliation

2000e-16(a),
¶¶

20-23.)

and
The

in

violation

breach
Court

(ECF No. 22.)

of

of

Title

VII,

She
42

a

settlement

agreement.

granted

Geithner’s

Motion

to

Dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for breach of settlement and Motion
for Summary Judgment on her retaliation claim.
Motions, ECF No. 92.)

1

(Order Granting

On September 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed

The current Secretary of the Treasury, Jacob J.
“Defendant”), has been substituted as Defendant in this case.

Lew

(“Lew”

or

her Notice of Appeal.

(Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 101.)

On

January 2, 2013 the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of
the breach of settlement claim and reversed and remanded the
Court’s judgment on the retaliation claim.

(USCA Judgment, ECF

No. 103.)
Before the Court are Defendant’s May 11, 2015 Motion to
Dismiss

and/or

for

Summary

Judgment

(the

“Motion”),

the

Magistrate Judge’s September 23, 2015 Report and Recommendation
recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be granted (the “R&R”),
and Taylor’s October 7, 2015 Objection to the R&R (the “R&R
Objection”).

(MSJ, ECF No. 176; R&R, ECF No. 205; Obj., ECF No.

212.)
For the following reasons, the Objection is OVERRULED, the
R&R is ADOPTED, and the Motion is GRANTED.
I.

Background
The

Court

assumes

familiarity

with

the

factual

and

procedural background of this case, which the R&R sets forth in
detail.

(R&R.)

Unless otherwise stated, the Court adopts the

R&R’s defined terms.
II.

Jurisdiction
Taylor alleges violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-

16(a).

The Court has federal question jurisdiction over the

claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c).
28 U.S.C. § 1331; 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c).

2

See

III. Standard of Review
Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve the burden on
the federal judiciary by permitting the assignment of district
court duties to Magistrate Judges.
237

F.3d

States,

598,
490

602

U.S.

(6th
858,

Cir.

See United States v. Curtis,

2001)

869-70

(citing

(1989));

Gomez

see

v.

also

Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003).

United

Baker

v.

“A district

judge must determine de novo any part of a Magistrate Judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to.”
P.

72(b);

28

U.S.C.

§

636(b)(1)(C).

After

Fed. R. Civ.
reviewing

the

evidence, the Court is free to accept, reject, or modify the
proposed findings or recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

The district court is not required to

review—under a de novo or any other standard—“any issue that is
not the subject of an objection.”
150 (1985).

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,

The district court should adopt the findings and

rulings of the Magistrate Judge to which no specific objection
is filed.
“The
does

not

tantamount

Id. at 151.
filing
meet
to

of

the
a

vague,

general,

requirement

complete

of

failure

or

conclusory

specific
to

objections

objections

object.”

Cason, 354 F. App’x 228, 230 (6th Cir. 2009).

and

is

Zimmerman

v.

“A plaintiff’s

failure to file a specific objection to a magistrate judge’s
report or one which fails to specifically identify the issues of

3

contention does not satisfy the requirement that an objection
was filed at all.”

Harper v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, No. 2:14-

cv-02998-JTF-cgc, 2015 WL 4078425 at *1, (W.D. Tenn. July 6,
2015) (citing Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d
505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)).
IV.

Analysis
Taylor

has

not

filed

any

specific

objections

Magistrate Judge’s findings or conclusions.

to

the

Taylor generally

objects to the Magistrate Judge’s and this Court’s jurisdiction
over

the

case

coherent.

in

a

series

of

arguments

(Obj., ECF No. 212 1-6.)

that

are

less

than

Taylor herself invoked the

jurisdiction of the Court and asserted a federal claim.
Taylor

also

generally

objects

that

the

Magistrate

Judge

ignored Taylor’s objections to the Motion, without specifying
what those objections were.

(Id. at 2.)

Some of the objections

are said to have been made before the Motion was filed.
Taylor
relevant

generally
case

(Id. at 2-4.)

argues

law,

that

without

the

Magistrate

specifying

how

Judge

that

law

(Id.)
ignored

applies.

Taylor contends that there are issues of material

fact for a jury to decide, but does not specify those issues or
cite

facts

Magistrate

to

support

Judge

based

her

contention.

her

recommendation

(Id.
on

at
the

5.)
Motion

The
to

Dismiss and on Taylor’s failure to respond to the Motion despite

4

a

Show

Cause

Order.

(R&R,

ECF

No.

205

at

3-4;6.)

The

Magistrate Judge did not apply the summary judgment standard.
V.

Conclusion
Taylor’s objections are general and at times incoherent.

They are not specific objections pursuant to Rule 72(b), and the
Court should and does adopt the findings and rulings of the
Magistrate

Judge.

The

Objection

is

OVERRULED,

the

R&R

is

ADOPTED, and the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

So ordered this 9th day of October, 2015.

s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr.______
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5