Patterson v. Federal Express-Tech Operational Training

Filing 7

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 6 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 1/13/2015.

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

DENISE LAFAY PATTERSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL EXPRESS – TECH
OPERATIONAL TRAINING,
Defendant.

No. 14-2947

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On

December

(“Patterson”)

9,

filed

2014,
her

pro

Plaintiff
se

Denise

Complaint

LaFay

Patterson

against

Defendant

Federal Express – Tech Operational Training (“FedEx”).
ECF No. 1.)

(Compl.,

Patterson alleges that FedEx discriminated against

her by failing to promote her.

(Id.)

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s December 12,
2014 Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) recommending that
the Court dismiss the Complaint sua sponte.
6.)

(Report, ECF No.

No objection to the Report has been filed 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.

See United States v. Curtis,

237

F.3d

States,

598,
490

602

U.S.

(6th
858,

Cir.

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 Patterson failed to allege
an essential element of a Title VII discrimination claim: that
Patterson is a member of a protected group under Title VII.
(Report at 6) (citing Younis v. Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., 610
F.3d 359, 363 (6th Cir. 2010)).

The Magistrate Judge recommends

that the Court sua sponte dismiss Patterson’s Title VII claims,
pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

§

1915(e)(2)(ii).

(Id.)

The

Report

states that any objections must be filed within fourteen (14)
days after service of the Report.

(Id. at 7); see also 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)(“Within fourteen days after being served
2

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

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.

So ordered this 13th day of January, 2015.

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

3