Newton v. Select Staffing et al

Filing 6

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 . Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 02/03/15. The Clerk is DIRECTED to issue process for ESI and deliver that process to the Marshal for service. The United States is ORDERED to advance all servic e costs. Plaintiff is ORDERED to serve a copy of every document filed in this case on ESI's counsel, make a certificate of service on every document filed, familiarize herself with this Court's local rules, and promptly notify the Clerk of any change of address or extended absence. Modified on 2/4/2015 (jl).

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

NIEKEYEA NEWTON

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
SELECT STAFFING and ESI
COMPANIES, INC.,
Defendants.

No. 14-2985

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On

December

(“Plaintiff”)

15,

filed

2014,

her

pro

Plaintiff

se

Complaint

Niekeyea
against

Newton

Defendants

Select Staffing and ESI Companies, Inc. (“ESI”) (collectively,
“Defendants”).

(Compl.,

ECF

No.

1.)

Plaintiff

brings

her

claims, in forma pauperis, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.

(Id.; IFP

Order,

Defendants

ECF

discriminated

No.

4.)

against

Plaintiff
her

based

alleges

on

her

that

gender

(the

“Gender

Discrimination Claims”) and denied her employment in retaliation
for

refusing

sexual

advances

(the

“Retaliation

Claims”).

(Compl. ¶¶ 3, 9-10; EEOC Charge at 1, ECF No. 1-1.)
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s January 15, 2015
Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) recommending that the
case be partially dismissed.

(Report, ECF No. 5.)

No objection

has been filed to the Report and the time to do so has passed.
For the following reasons, the Report is ADOPTED.
Gender

Discrimination

and

Staffing are DISMISSED.

Retaliation

Claims

Plaintiff’s

against

Select

Her Gender Discrimination Claim against

ESI 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.

See United States v. Curtis,

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 Plaintiff has failed to
plead

sufficient

facts

to

support
2

a

prima

facie

gender

discrimination

claim.

(Report

dismissing

the

Defendants.

6-7.)

Magistrate

Discrimination

She

Judge

finds

Claims

recommends

(Id. at 7.)

The

Gender

at

that

against

Plaintiff

both

has

pled

sufficient facts to support a retaliation claim against ESI, but
has failed to plead sufficient facts to support a retaliation
claim against Select Staffing.

(Id. at 8-10.)

She recommends

dismissing the Retaliation Claim against Select Staffing.

(Id.)

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court direct the
Clerk to issue process for ESI and deliver that process to the
Marshal for service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4(h)(1).

(Id. at 11.)

She recommends that the United States

advance all service costs.
The

Magistrate

Judge

(Id.)
further

recommends

that

the

Court

order Newton to serve a copy of every document filed in this
case on ESI’s counsel, make a certificate of service on every
document

filed,

familiarize

herself

with

this

Court’s

local

rules, and promptly notify the Clerk of any change of address or
extended absence.

(Id.)

She recommends that the Court warn

Plaintiff that failure to comply with those requirements, or any
other

Court

order,

may

without further notice.

result

in

the

dismissal

of

her

case

(Id. at 11-12.)

The Report states that any objections must be filed within
14 days after service of the Report, and that failure to file
3

objections or exceptions within 14 days may constitute waiver of
objections,

exceptions,

and

any

further

appeal.

(Id.

at

12

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)).)
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.

Plaintiff’s

Retaliation

Claim

Plaintiff’s

Gender

DISMISSED.
deliver

Gender

against

Discrimination

Select

Discrimination

Staffing
Claim

Claim

are

and

DISMISSED.

against

ESI

is

The Clerk is DIRECTED to issue process for ESI and

that

process

to

the

Marshal

for

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(1).
ORDERED to advance all service costs.

service

pursuant

to

The United States is

Plaintiff is ORDERED to

serve a copy of every document filed in this case on ESI’s
counsel, make a certificate of service on every document filed,
familiarize herself with this Court’s local rules, and promptly
notify the Clerk of any change of address or extended absence.
Plaintiff

is

WARNED

that

failure
4

to

comply

with

these

requirements,

or

any

other

Court

order,

may

result

in

the

dismissal of her case without further notice.

So ordered this 3d day of February, 2015.

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

5