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)

Download PDF
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

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?