Danish v. McDonalds et al

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Lewis Anderson terminated. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 3/11/2015. (Mays, Samuel)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
DIANNE DANISH,
Plaintiff,
v.
McDONALD’S and LEWIS ANDERSON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

15-2046

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s February 9, 2015
Report

and

“Dianne

Recommendation

Danish’s

age

(the

“Report”)

discrimination

and

recommending
retaliation

that
claims

against Lewis Anderson be [sua sponte] dismissed for failure to
state

a

claim

discrimination

but
and

(Rep., ECF No. 9.)

that

process

retaliation

issue

claims

for

Danish’s

against

age

McDonald’s.”

No objection has been filed to the Report

and the time to do so has passed.

For the following reasons,

the Magistrate Judge’s Report is ADOPTED.
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 Danish’s Complaint fails to
state a claim against Anderson.

(Report at 9-10.)

The Report

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

(Id. at 12.); 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
2

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 Danish’s claims against Anderson are DISMISSED.
So ordered this 11th day of March, 2015.
/s Samuel H. Mays, Jr.______
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3