Brown v. Desoto County School District

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, ORDER OF TRANSFER TO NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 8/13/2014. (Mays, Samuel)

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

Tamara Brown,

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

Plaintiff,
v.
Desoto County Schools,

Defendant.

No. 14-2174

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s June 12, 2014
Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) recommending that the
Court transfer the case to the Northern District of Mississippi
and

deny

without

prejudice

Defendant

DeSoto

County

District’s1 (“School District”) Motion to Dismiss.
No. 20.)

(Rep., ECF

No objection has been filed to the Report and the time

to do so has passed.
Judge’s

School

Report

is

For the following reasons, the Magistrate

ADOPTED,

the

School

District’s

Motion

to

Dismiss is denied without prejudice, and the case is transferred

1

The Defendant was incorrectly named in the complaint as DeSoto County
Schools.

to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Mississippi.
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.

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).

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

Id. at 151.

recommends

that

the

case

be

transferred to the Northern District of Mississippi and that the
School District’s Motion to Dismiss be denied without prejudice.
(Report,

ECF

No.

20

at

8.)

The

Report

states

that

any

objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of being
2

served with the Report.
636(b)(1)(C)(“Within

(Id.

fourteen

at 7);

days

see

after

also 28 U.S.C. §

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

Report

is

ADOPTED,

the

School District’s Motion to Dismiss is denied without prejudice,
and the case is transferred to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi.
So ordered this 13th day of August, 2014.

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

3