Johnson v. Belvedere Gardens Condominium Association, Inc. et al

Filing 71

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 07/02/2013.

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

CECIL JOHNSON,

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

Plaintiff,
v.
BELVEDERE GARDENS CONDOMINIUMS
ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

No. 12-2118

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court are the May 28, 2013 ore tenus Motion to
Dismiss

(the

Condominiums

“Motion”)

made

Association,

by

Inc.

Defendants

(“Belvedere

Belvedere

Gardens

Gardens”),

Barbara

(Williams) Hastings (“Hastings”), Joann Lewallen (“Lewallen”),
and

Dinkelspiel

Rasmussen

&

Mink,

PLLC

(the

“Law

Firm”)

(collectively, “Defendants”) and the Magistrate Judge’s May 28,
2013 Report and Recommendation (the “Report”).
66.)

(Report, ECF No.

Plaintiff Cecil Johnson (“Johnson”) has not objected to

the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the time for doing so has
passed.
after

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“Within fourteen days

being

served

with

a

copy

[of

the

Magistrate

Judge’s

Report], any party may serve and file written objections to such

proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of
court.”).

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Motion be

granted, and that: (1) all claims against Hastings, Lewallen,
and

the

Law

Firm,

as

well

as

all

race-based

discrimination

claims under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et seq.,
be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted; and (2) Hastings, Lewallen, and the
Law

Firm

be

dismissed

as

parties

to

this

action.

For

the

following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate
Judge.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

Congress intended 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—those aspects of
the report and recommendation to which no objection is made.
2

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). The district court
should adopt the findings and rulings of the magistrate judge to
which no specific objection is filed.

Id. at 151.

Johnson has not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report.
The deadline for objecting, which was explicitly referenced in
the Report, has passed.

Because Johnson has failed to object,

Arn counsels the Court to adopt the Report in its entirety.

Id.

Adopting the Report is consistent with the policies underlying §
636, specifically judicial economy and protecting against the
“functions of the district court [being] effectively duplicated
as both the magistrate and the district court perform identical
tasks.”

Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505,

509 (6th Cir. 1991).
For

the

foregoing

reasons,

the

Report

is

ADOPTED

and

Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED.
So ordered this 2d day of July, 2013.

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

3