Price v. United Parcel Service (UPS)

Filing 14

ORDER granting Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; adopting Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 05/28/2013.

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

KENNETH E. PRICE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE,
Defendant.

No. 12-2760

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is the November 15, 2012 Motion to Dismiss
filed

by

Defendant

United

Parcel

Service

(“UPS”)

and

the

Magistrate Judge’s May 3, 2013 Report and Recommendation (the
“Report”).
Plaintiff

(Motion,
Kenneth

ECF

Price

No.

9);

(“Price”)

(Report,

has

not

ECF

No.

objected

to

13.)
the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and the time for doing so has passed.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“Within fourteen days after 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 Price’s Complaint be dismissed
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Report of the
Magistrate Judge.

UPS’ 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.
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.

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

Arn directs the Court, because Price

failed to object, 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
2

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 UPS’
Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

Price’s Complaint is DISMISSED.

So ordered this 28th day of May, 2013.

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

3