Jackson v. City of Mphs., TN

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 11/13/15. (Mays, Samuel)

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

GLORIA S. JACKSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF MEMPHIS,
Defendant.

No. 15-2313-SHM-dkv

ORDER

On

May

“Plaintiff”)
Memphis

11,
filed

2015,
a

(“Memphis”

or

pro

Gloria
se

S.

Jackson

Complaint

“Defendant”).

(“Jackson”

against
She

the

seeks

or

City

relief

of
for

retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17 (“Title VII”).

(Compl., ECF

No. 1.)
Before the Court are the Magistrate Judge’s May 22, 2015
Report

and

Recommendation

recommending

that

the

Complaint

be

dismissed sua sponte for failure to state a claim (the “R&R”)
and

Jackson’s

“Objection”).

June

3,

2015

Objection

to

the

R&R

(the

(R&R, ECF No. 5; Obj., ECF No. 6.)

For the following reasons, the Objection is OVERRULED, the
R&R is ADOPTED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED.

I.

Background
The

Court

assumes

familiarity

with

the

factual

and

procedural background of this case, which the R&R sets forth in
detail.

(R&R.)

Unless otherwise stated, the Court adopts the

R&R’s defined terms.
II.

Jurisdiction
Jackson

alleges

violation

of

Title

VII.

The

Court

has

federal question jurisdiction over the claim under 28 U.S.C. §
1331.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

III. Standard of Review
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—“any issue that is
not the subject of an objection.”

2

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.
“The

Id. at 151.

does

not

filing
meet

tantamount

to

of

the
a

vague,

general,

requirement

complete

of

failure

or

conclusory

specific
to

objections

objections

object.”

and

is

Zimmerman

v.

Cason, 354 F. App’x 228, 230 (6th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks

omitted).

“A

plaintiff’s

failure

to

file

a

specific

objection to a magistrate judge’s report or one which fails to
specifically identify the issues of contention does not satisfy
the requirement that an objection was filed at all.”
U.S.

Dept.

of

Justice,

No.

Harper v.

2:14-cv-02998-JTF-cgc,

2015

WL

4078425 at *1 (W.D. Tenn. July 6, 2015) (citing Howard v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)).
IV.

Analysis
The

Magistrate

Judge

recommends

that

the

Complaint

be

dismissed sua sponte for failure to state a claim because the
action is time-barred under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).
ECF No. 5 at 1.)

The Complaint alleges that Jackson received a

Notice of the Right to Sue from the EEOC in 2010.
No. 1 at ¶ 14.)

(R&R,

(Compl., ECF

An employee seeking relief under Title VII must

file her civil action within ninety days of receiving a Notice
of the Right to Sue.

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).

was filed on May 11, 2015.

(Compl., ECF No. 1.)

3

This action
The time

limitation
tolling.
(1982).

is

subject

Zipes

v.

to

Trans

waiver,
World

estoppel,

Airlines,

and
U.S.

455

equitable
385,

393

The Magistrate Judge concluded that there was no basis

for extending the time limitation in this case.

(R&R, ECF No. 5

at 11.)
Jackson

has

not

filed

any

specific

objections

Magistrate Judge’s findings or conclusions.

to

the

Jackson generally

objects to the R&R, arguing that “[n]ot all of the issues which
you addressed in your ‘Report and recommendation for SUA Sponte
Dismissal’ were relevant to this case.”
1.)

(Response, ECF No. 6 at

She argues that the case is not a Title VII case, but a

“regular

lawsuit.”

$40,000,000.00.

(Id.)

She

now

requests

relief

of

(Id.)

Attached to the Objection are a letter from the EEOC Office
in Memphis affirming that a Notice of Right to Sue the City of
Memphis

was

issued

fingerprints,
Report.

and

to
an

(Objection,

Jackson
FBI
ECF

in

2010,

Criminal
Nos.

a

copy

Background

6-1;6-2;6-3.)

of

Jackson’s

Investigation
None

of

those

documents is or supports a specific objection to the Magistrate
Judge’s conclusion that the Complaint was not timely filed.

The

EEOC Letter appears to support that conclusion.
V.

Conclusion
Jackson’s objections are general.

The documents provided

are not specific objections pursuant to Rule 72(b).

4

The Court

should and does adopt the findings and rulings of the Magistrate
Judge.

The Objection is OVERRULED, the R&R is ADOPTED, and the

Complaint is DISMISSED.

So ordered this 13th day of November, 2015.

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

5