Jones-Maclin v. Tiger Commissary Services, Inc.

Filing 39

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 28 Motion to Dismiss; adopting Report and Recommendations re 31 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 02/03/2015.

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

VERONICA JONES-MACLIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIGER COMMISSARY SERVICES
INC., a/k/a TIGER CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES, INC., a/k/a TIGER
COMMISSARY CORRECTIONAL, TIM
PONDER, and DEBBIE HARRISON.
Defendants.

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

No. 14-2383

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s January 13, 2015
Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) recommending that the
case be dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41.

(Report, ECF No. 38.)

No objection has been

filed to the Report and the time to do so has passed.
following

reasons,

the

Report

is

ADOPTED

and

the

For the
case

is

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
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.

Id. at 151.

The Magistrate Judge finds that Plaintiff Veronica JonesMaclin (“Plaintiff”) has failed to prosecute her case.
at 2-3.)
Federal

(Report

She recommends that the Court dismiss the case under
Rule

of

Civil

Procedure

41(b).

(Id.)

She

also

recommends that Defendants Tiger Commissary Services Inc., a/k/a
Tiger

Correctional

Correctional,

Tim

“Defendants”)

Services,

be

Plaintiff’s

Ponder,

failure

awarded
to

Inc.,
Debbie

and

ak/a

Harrison

fees

attend

and
her

Tiger

expenses

deposition,

Commissary

(collectively,
related
which

to

total

$3,629, unless Plaintiff can show that the failure to attend was
substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of
expenses unjust.
2

The Report states that any objections must be filed within
14 days after service of the Report, and that failure to file
objections or exceptions within 14 days may constitute waiver of
objections,

exceptions,

and

any

further

appeal.

(Id.

at

4

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)).)
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 Magistrate Judge’s Report is
ADOPTED

and

the

case

is

DISMISSED

WITH

PREJUDICE.

Because

Plaintiff has failed to show that her failure to attend her
deposition

was

substantially

justified

or

other

circumstances

make an award of expenses unjust, Defendants are AWARDED $3,629
in fees and expenses.

So ordered this 3rd day of February, 2015.

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

3