Irby v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. et al

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 09/01/2015. (Mays, Samuel)

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

BETHANY S. IRBY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING,
INC.,
Defendant.

No. 14-cv-2933-SHM-tmp

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s August 11, 2015
Report

and

Recommendation

Select

Portfolio

(the

Servicing,

Dismiss be granted.

“Report”)

Inc.’s

recommending

(“Defendant”)

(Report, ECF No. 27.)

that

Motion

to

No objection has

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

For

the following reasons, the Report is ADOPTED and the case is
DISMISSED.
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

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 the Court has the authority
to dismiss the case with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure

41(b)

and

37(b)(2)

due

to

Bethany

S.

Irby’s

(“Plaintiff”) failure to prosecute or to comply with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

(Report, ECF No. 27 at 6.)

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

objections,

within

14

exceptions,

days

and

any

may

constitute

further

appeal.

waiver
(Id.

of

at

7

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); L.R.
72.1(g)(2)).)
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 §
2

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.

So ordered this 1st day of September, 2015.

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

3