Williams v. Youth Villages et al

Filing 22

Motions terminated: 17 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 filed by Latonya Pendelton, Youth Villages, 20 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Latonya Pendelton, Youth Villages, 21 REPORT AND REC OMMENDATIONS re 20 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Latonya Pendelton, Youth Villages, 17 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 filed by Latonya Pendelton, Youth Villages., ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 03/21/2014.

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

Brenda C. Williams,
Plaintiff,
v.
Youth Villages, Douglass
Walker, Gigi (Gail) Franklin,
Rebecca Hancock, and LaTonya
Pendleton,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 12-2933

ORDER

Before the Court are Defendants Youth Villages and LaTonya
Pendleton’s (“Pendleton”) November 12, 2013 Motion to Dismiss
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (the “Motion to
Dismiss”),

Youth

Villages

and

Pendleton’s

January

3,

2014

Renewed Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12 (the “Renewed Motion”), and the Magistrate Judge’s
March 5, 2014 Report and Recommendation (the “Report”).1

(Mot.

Dismiss, ECF No. 17; Renew. Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 20; Report,
ECF No. 21.)

Plaintiff Brenda Williams (“Williams”) has not

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

1

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

The Motion and the Renewed Motion were filed by counsel on behalf of all the
Defendants in this action. (Memo. Supp. Mot. Dismiss at 1-2, ECF No. 17-1;
Memo. Supp. Renew. Mot. Dismiss at 1, ECF No. 20-1.)

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 the Court deny

the Motion to Dismiss, grant the Renewed Motion, and dismiss
Williams’ Complaint in its entirety.
the

Court

ADOPTS

the

Report

For the following reasons,

of

the

Magistrate

Judge.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED and Defendants’ Renewed
Motion 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).

“‘Only

Fed. R. Civ.
those

specific

objections to the magistrate’s report . . . will be preserved
for [] review.’”

Carson v. Hudson, 421 F. App’x 560, 563 (6th

Cir. 2011) (quoting Souter v. Jones, 395 F.3d 577, 585 (6th Cir.
2005)); see also Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers, Local 231,
829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987).

2

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

Because Williams 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).
The Magistrate Judge’s Report is ADOPTED.

The Motion to

Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 is DENIED
and the Renewed Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil

Procedure

12

is

GRANTED.

DISMISSED.
3

Williams’

complaint

is

So ordered this 21st day of March, 2014.

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

4