Milam v. Southaven Police Department et al

Filing 11

ORDER adopting 7 Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Case.. Signed by Judge Sheryl H. Lipman on 04/10/2015. (Lipman, Sheryl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
TINA L. MILAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTHAVEN POLICE DEPARTMENT;
DETECTIVE TODD SAMPLES, in his
Official capacity; BAPTIST
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL DESOTO;
JERRY POPE, in his Capacity as
Administrator of BMH; JANE DOE, in her
capacity as Charge Nurse at BMH; JOHN
DOE, in his official capacity as
Supervisor of Security at BMH;
MLGW PENSION DEPARTMENT;
MLGW INSURANCE DEPARTMENT;
MLGW RESIDENTIAL DEPARTMENT;
MARCUS TATE, in his capacity
as employee of MLGW; TODD
WILLIAMS, in his capacity
as attorney for MLGW; IVAN NORMAN, in
her capacity as employee of MLGW; LG&W
FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; ATT
CORPORATE OFFICE HEADQUARTERS;
ATT FRAUD DEPARTMENT; BARRY C.
BLACKBURN, Attorney; EUGENIA J.
JACKSON, Notary Public; WILL TATE;
RONNIE SMITH, SR.; INELL
KNOWLTON; ELLA MAE MCGINISTER;
and AUDREY KNOWLTON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 15-cv-02029-SHL-dkv

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING CASE

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s “Report and Recommendation for Sua Sponte
Dismissal” (the “Report and Recommendation”), which was filed on February 13, 2015. (ECF

No. 7.) Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the Report and Recommendation on March 10, 2015.
(See ECF No. 10.)
District courts must conduct a de novo review of the parts of a magistrate judge's report
and recommendation to which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, after
conducting a de novo review, a district court is not required to articulate all of the reasons it
rejects a party's objections. Tuggle v. Seabold, 806 F.2d 87, 92 (6th Cir. 1986). This Court has
conducted a de novo review by reviewing the record before the Magistrate Judge in light of
Plaintiff's objections and hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The
Magistrate Judge correctly held that this Court has no jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims because
there is neither a federal question nor complete diversity between the parties.
Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation are filled with inaccurate
statements of fact, e.g., claiming the Magistrate Judge relied on an overruled case when that case
was not cited or referred to in the Report and Recommendation, and citations to cases that are
clearly irrelevant to the issues at hand. Plaintiff’s primary claim is that the Magistrate Judge
erred by dismissing her case without giving her an opportunity to amend her complaint. Plaintiff
repeatedly argues that all of her claims can be cured through an amendment to her complaint, but
she fails to point to any additional factual or legal allegations that would remedy the
jurisdictional issues Magistrate Judge Vescovo noted in the Report and Recommendation. Upon
de novo review, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to plausibly plead claims over which
Court has jurisdiction and that any amendment to her complaint would be futile. Plaintiff’s
complaint is accordingly DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 10th day of April, 2015.
s/ Sheryl H. Lipman
SHERYL H. LIPMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3