Irby v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. et al
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
BETHANY S. IRBY,
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING,
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s August 11, 2015
Dismiss be granted.
(Report, ECF No. 27.)
No objection has
been filed to the Report and the time to do so has passed.
the following reasons, the Report is ADOPTED and the case is
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.
See United States v. Curtis,
Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003).
judge must determine de novo any part of a magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to.”
Fed. R. Civ.
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
(“Plaintiff”) failure to prosecute or to comply with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
(Report, ECF No. 27 at 6.)
Report states that any objections must be filed within 14 days
after service of the Report, and that failure to file objections
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); L.R.
Because no party has objected, Arn counsels the Court to
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
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?