Millen v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 11 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 9/9/2015. (Mays, Samuel)

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

KELLY MILLEN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

No. 15-2032

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s August 25, 2015
Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) recommending that the
Court

dismiss

Plaintiff’s

complaint

for

failure

to

prosecute

pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(Rep., ECF No. 11.)
to

the

Report

and

The Plaintiff has not filed any objection
the

time

to

do

so

has

passed.

For

the

following reasons, the Magistrate Judge’s 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 Plaintiff failed to file
her brief by June 6, 2015, in violation of the May 7, 2015
Administrative Track Scheduling Order.
Sched. Order, ECF No. 9.)

(Rep., ECF No. 11 at 1;

On June 22, 2015, Plaintiff was

ordered to show cause within 30 days why the case should not be
dismissed

for

failure

(Order, ECF No. 10.)

to

prosecute

pursuant

to

Rule

41(b).

Plaintiff has failed to respond to that

order.
The

Magistrate

Plaintiff’s

complaint

Judge
be

pursuant to Rule 41(b).

recommends
dismissed

on

for

these
failure

grounds
to

that

prosecute

The Report further states that any

objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after service
of

the

Report.

(Rep.,

ECF

No.
2

11.);

see

also

28

U.S.C.

§

636(b)(1)(C) (“Within fourteen days after being served 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 9th day of September, 2015.

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

3