Evans v. Walgreen Company

Filing 143

ORDER denying 72 Motion for Sanctions; adopting Report and Recommendations re 140 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 09/22/2011.

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

CHANDRA EVANS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
WALGREEN COMPANY,
Defendant.

No. 09-2491

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On

December

19,

2010,

Defendant

Walgreen

Company

(“Walgreens”) filed a Motion for Sanctions under Rule 11 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 11 Motion”).
Motion,

ECF

Magistrate

No.

Judge

72.)
Tu

M.

This
Pham

court
on

referred

December

13,

(Rule 11

the

Motion

to

2010

(Order

of

Reference, ECF No. 73), and Magistrate Judge Pham recommended
denial on August 18, 2011.
140 (“Report”).)
Walgreens’

Motion

(Report and Recommendation, ECF No.

For the following reasons, the Court DENIES
for

Sanctions

and

ADOPTS

the

Magistrate

Judge’s Report.
Walgreens’ Rule 11 Motion seeks sanctions against Evans’
counsel.

(See Def.’s Mot. for Sanctions Under Rule 11 of the

F.R.C.P., ECF No. 72 (“Mot.for Sanctions”).)

Walgreens contends

that Evans filed a motion for sanctions frivolously and accused

Walgreens’ counsel of “unethical conduct”.
3.)

(Mot. for Sanctions

On August 18, 2011, Magistrate Judge Pham found that the

actions of Evans’ attorney were not unreasonable and recommended
against sanctions.

(Report 11.)

Neither party has objected to

the ruling.
“It is well-settled that upon proper objection by a party,
a district court must review de novo a magistrate judge’s ruling
on a motion to suppress.”

United States v. Quinney, 238 F.

App’x 150, 152 (6th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted); see also 28
U.S.C. §636(b)(1) (instructing district judges to “make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed

findings

or

recommendations

to

which

objection

is

made.”).

The district court need not review, under a de novo or

any other standard, those aspects of a magistrate judge’s report
and recommendation to which no specific objection is made.

See

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985); United States v.
Robinson, 352 F. App’x 27, 28-29 (6th Cir. 2009).
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) allows each party fourteen days from
receipt of service to appeal the report.

“[A] party must file

objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
within the time permitted, or else waive the right to appeal.”
United States v. Vanwinkle, 645 F.3d 365, 371 (6th Cir. 2011);
see also Smith v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 410 F. App’x
891, 896 (6th Cir. 2010) (finding that plaintiffs waived their
2

right

to

ruling).

appeal

by

failing

to

object

to

magistrate

judge’s

The Report was filed on August 16, 2011, and neither

party has filed an objection.
The

Court

ADOPTS

the

Report

and

Recommendation

of

the

Magistrate Judge and DENIES Walgreens’ Motion for Sanctions.
So ordered this 22nd day of September, 2011.

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

3