Newton v. Select Staffing et al
Filing
28
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 27 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 09/14/2015. (Mays, Samuel)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
NIEKEYEA NEWTON,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
ESI COMPANIES, INC.,
Defendant.
No. 14-cv-2985-SHM-DKV
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s July 24, 2015
Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) recommending that ESI
Companies, Inc.’s (“ESI” or “Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss be
granted.
(Report, ECF No. 27.)
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.”
Fed. R. Civ.
P.
72(b);
28
U.S.C.
§
636(b)(1)(C).
After
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)(A)(v)
due
to
Niekeyea
Newton’s
(“Plaintiff”) failure to prosecute or to comply with a court
order.
(Report, ECF No. 27 at 9.)
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 within
14 days may constitute waiver of objections, exceptions, and any
further appeal.
(Id. at 7 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(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 §
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
2
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 14th 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?