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.

Download PDF
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

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?