James E. Bernard, Jr. v. Illinois Central Railroad Company

Filing 42

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
WESTERN DIVISION

James E. Bernard, Jr.,

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

Plaintiff,
v.
Illinois Central Railroad
Company,
Defendant.

No. 13-2024

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”).
26.)

(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.
237

F.3d

States,

598,
490

602

U.S.

(6th
858,

Cir.
869-70

See United States v. Curtis,

2001)

(citing

(1989));

see

Gomez
also

v.

United

Baker

v.

Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003).

“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.
The

Magistrate

Judge

recommends

dismissed for failure to prosecute.
The

Report

states

that

Id. at 151.

any

that

the

Complaint

(Report, ECF No. 41 at 3.)

objections

must

be

filed

fourteen (14) days of being served with the Report.
3.)

be

within

(Rep. at

See also 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 the rules
of the court.”).
Because no party has objected, Arn counsels the Court to
adopt

the

Report

in

its

entirety.

Arn,

474

U.S.

at

151.

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 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