James E. Bernard, Jr. v. Illinois Central Railroad Company
ORDER adopting 41 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 5/19/2014.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
James E. Bernard, Jr.,
Illinois Central Railroad
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s April 29, 2014
Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) recommending that the
Court grant Defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company’s Motion
to Dismiss (the “Motion”).
(Rep., ECF No. 41; Mot., ECF No.
No objection has been filed to the Report and the time to
do so has passed.
For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS
the Report of the Magistrate Judge and DISMISSES the Complaint.
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.
See United States v. Curtis,
Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003).
judge must determine de novo any part of a magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to.”
Fed. R. Civ.
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.
dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Id. at 151.
(Report, ECF No. 41 at 3.)
fourteen (14) days of being served with the Report.
See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)(“Within fourteen days
Report], any party may serve and file written objections to such
proposed findings and recommendations as provided by the rules
of the court.”).
Because no party has objected, Arn counsels the Court to
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
Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505,
509 (6th Cir. 1991).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Report and
the Complaint is DISMISSED.
So ordered this 19th day of May, 2014.
s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr. ____
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?