Archer v. City of Memphis, et al.

Filing 11

ORDER adopting 10 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 4/21/2016. (Mays, Samuel)

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

JOHN W. ARCHER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF MEMPHIS, JOSEPH PAYNE,
and LARRY WESTON,
Defendants.

No. 15-2676

ORDER

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s March 30, 2016
Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) recommending that the
Court

dismiss

Plaintiff

John

Archer’s

(“Archer”)

Complaint

without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a).

(Report, ECF No. 10.)

Neither Archer nor Defendants

City of Memphis, Joseph Payne, and Larry Weston (collectively,
“Defendants”) have filed an objection to the Report and the time
to do so has passed.

For the following reasons, the Magistrate

Judge’s Report is ADOPTED and Archer’s Complaint is DISMISSED
without prejudice.
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

598,

602

(6th

Cir.

See United States v. Curtis,

2001)

(citing

Gomez

v.

United

States,

490

U.S.

858,

869-70

(1989));

see

also

Peterson, 67 Fed. App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003).

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 at a March 29, 2016 status
conference, Archer stated that “due to his current financial
situation and limited ability to represent himself, he [is] not
in

a

position

to

move

forward

(Report, ECF No. 10 at 1.)

with

prosecuting

Archer’s
Civil

Magistrate
Complaint

Procedure

objections
service.

must

Judge
be

be

(Report,

recommends

dismissed

41(a).

The

filed
ECF

case.”

For that reason, Archer “made an

oral motion to dismiss his case without prejudice.”
The

his

No.

pursuant

Report

within
10
2

on

at

these
to

further

fourteen
2;

see

(Id.)
grounds

Federal
states
(14)
also

Rule
that

days
28

that
of
any

after

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 Archer’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

So ordered this 21st day of April, 2016.

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

3