Hughes v. Riviana Foods, Inc. et al

Filing 67

ORDER granting 55 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 56 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 65 Report and Recommendations.; adopting 66 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 3/22/2016. (Mays, Samuel)

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

ALPHONSO R. HUGHES,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
RIVIANA FOODS, INC., and
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 984,
Defendants.

No. 14-02910

ORDER

Before the Court are the Magistrate Judge’s March 4, 2016
Report

and

Recommendation

recommending

that

the

Court

grant

Defendant Teamsters Local 984’s (“Teamsters”) November 30, 2015
Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Magistrate Judge’s March 4,
2016 Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grant
Defendant Riviana Foods, Inc.’s (“Riviana”) November 30, 2015
Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Reports”).

(Teamsters Report,

ECF No. 65; Teamsters Mot., ECF No. 55; Riviana Report, ECF No.
66; Riviana Mot., ECF No. 56.)

Plaintiff Alphonso R. Hughes

(“Hughes”) has not filed any objection to the Reports and the
time

to

do

Magistrate

so

has

Judge’s

passed.
Reports

Summary Judgment are GRANTED.

For
are

the

ADOPTED

following
and

the

reasons,

the

Motions

for

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.

Id. at 151.

The Magistrate Judge finds that Hughes failed to respond to
Teamsters’

or

Riviana’s

statements

of

material

facts.

(Teamsters Report, ECF No. 65 at 2; Riviana Report, ECF No. 66
at 2.)
facts
(Id.)

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the
asserted

by

Teamsters

and

Riviana

are

not

in

dispute.

The Magistrate Judge finds that those facts indicate that

Hughes’ claims are barred by judicial estoppel, and that Hughes
2

has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
(Teamsters Report, ECF No. 65 at 8-18; Riviana Report, ECF No.
66 at 8-18).
The

Magistrate

Teamsters’
granted.
filed

and

Judge

Riviana’s

recommends
Motions

on

for

these
Summary

grounds
Judgment

that
be

The Reports further state that any objections must be

within

fourteen

(14)

days

after

service.

(Teamsters

Report, ECF No. 65 at 18; Riviana Report, ECF No. 66 at 18.);
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 Reports in their entirety.

Arn, 474 U.S. at 151.

Adopting the Reports 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 Reports
are ADOPTED and the Motions for Summary Judgment are GRANTED.

3

So ordered this 22nd day of March, 2016.

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

4