Long v. Medtronic Parkway

Filing 18

ORDER granting 12 Motion to Dismiss; adopting Report and Recommendation re 16 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 10/2/2015. (McCalla, Jon)

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

RONALD L. LONG,
Plaintiff,
v.
MEDTRONIC PARKWAY,
Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-02144-JPM-dkv

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s “Report and
Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient
Service of Process” (the “Report and Recommendation”), filed on
September 10, 2015.

(See ECF No. 16.)

In the Report and

Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends “that this case
be dismissed for insufficient service of process and lack of
jurisdiction.”

(Id. at 2.)

On August 23, 2015, Plaintiff timely filed his Objection to
the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17). 1
72(b)(2).
Objection.

See Fed. R. Civ. P.

Defendant did not file a response to Plaintiff’s
See id.

For the reasons stated below, the Court ADOPTS the
recommendation in the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16) in
its entirety.

1

Plaintiff’s Objection was mis-docketed as an Amended Complaint.

I.

BACKGROUND
This action involves claimed violations of Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”).

(See Am. Compl., ECF

No. 8 at 1.)
In a Complaint filed on February 27, 2015, Ronald L. Long
(“Plaintiff”), who is proceeding pro se, asserts that he filed
charges against Defendant with the Tennessee Human Rights
Commission, which transferred the case to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on April 11, 2013.
ECF No. 1.)

(Compl. ¶ 6,

He further asserts that he received a Notice of

Right to Sue (“RTS”) from the EEOC on November 25, 2014.
7.)

(Id. ¶

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant discriminated against him

based on race and retaliated against him “after Plaintiff
engaged in protected activity of voicing opposition to what he
reasonably believed and perceived to be unlawful and
discriminatory disciplinary actions by Management . . . .” (Id.
¶ 8.)

On March 12, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint,

adding some additional factual information regarding his claims.
On July 31, 2015, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s claims.

(ECF No. 12.)

Defendant asserts that

Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed for insufficient service
of process and lack of personal jurisdiction.
at 2.)

(See ECF No. 12-1

Specifically, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s service
2

was insufficient because he attempted to effect service of
process himself.
II.

(Id.)

ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) provides that

“[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the
recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific
written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations.”

Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

“The district judge

must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to.”

Fed. R. Civ.

P. 72(b)(3).
The portions of the Report and Recommendation as to which
no specific objections were timely filed are reviewed for clear
error.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee notes;

Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509
(6th Cir. 1991) (noting that when a party makes a general
objection, “[t]he district court’s attention is not focused on
any specific issues for review, thereby making the initial
reference to the magistrate useless”).

“A general objection to

the entirety of the magistrate’s report has the same effects as
would a failure to object.”

Howard, 932 F.2d at 509.

Moreover,

the failure to properly file objections constitutes a waiver of
appeal.

See Howard, 932 F.2d at 508; United States v. Walters,

638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
3

Plaintiff fails to make any specific objection to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report.

Rather, Plaintiff merely reasserts

the merits of his underlying claim and asks “for the court[’]s
forgiveness” for his failure to properly serve Defendant.
No. 17 at 1.)

(ECF

Nowhere in his Objection does Plaintiff even

reference the Magistrate Report and Recommendation.

(See id.)

Because Plaintiff makes only general objections to the
dismissal of his Complaint, the Court reviews the Magistrate’s
Report and Recommendation for clear error.
at 509.

See Howard, 932 F.2d

On clear-error review, the Court hereby ADOPTS the

Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16) in its entirety.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12) is
GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 8) is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of October, 2015.

/s/ Jon P. McCalla
JON P. McCALLA
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

4