Murrell v. Cracker Barrel

Filing 5

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Motions terminated: 4 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Pro Se Complaint filed by Marcus Murrell.. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 12/2/2013. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to issue a summons to Cracker Barrel on Murrell's remaining claim of race discrimination. (Mays, Samuel)

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

Marcus Murrell,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
Cracker Barrel,
Defendants.

No. 13-2619

ORDER

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s September 11,
2013 Report and Recommendation for Sua Sponte Dismissal of Claim
of Color Discrimination and for Issuance of Summons on Remaining
Claim (the “Report”). (Report, ECF No. 4.)

Plaintiff Marcus

Murrell (“Murrell”) has not objected to 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

recommendations
Magistrate

Judge

as

to

provided

recommends

such
by

that

claim for color discrimination.

proposed

rules
the

of

Court

findings

court.”).
dismiss

(Report at 1.)

and
The

Murrell’s

The Magistrate

Judge recommends that the Clerk of Court be directed to issue a
summons

to

Defendant

Cracker

Barrel

(“Cracker

Barrel”)

on

Murrell’s claim for race discrimination.

(Id. at 1-2.)

For the

following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate
Judge.

The Magistrate Judge’s sua sponte Motion for Dismissal

of Murrell’s claim for color discrimination is GRANTED.

The

Court directs the Clerk of Court to issue a summons to Cracker
Barrel for Murrell’s claim of race discrimination.
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).
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
2

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

Because Murrell 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.
Judge’s

sua

sponte

Motion

for

discrimination claim is GRANTED.
claim is DISMISSED.

Dismissal

of

The Magistrate
Murrell’s

color

Murrell’s color discrimination

The Court directs the Clerk of Court to

issue a summons to Cracker Barrel on Murrell’s remaining claim
of race discrimination.
So ordered this 2nd day of December, 2013.

s/Samuel H. Mays, Jr.
3

______

SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4