Ankton v. United States Treasury Department
Filing
36
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 10 Motion to Dismiss and 29 Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint.. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 12/30/2016. (Mays, Samuel)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CHANDRANITA ANKTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES TREASURY
DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.
No. 2:16-cv-2736-SHM-dkv
ORDER
Before
the
Recommendation
Court
dated
is
the
December
Magistrate
6,
2016
Judge’s
(the
Report
“Report”).
and
The
Report recommends that the Court deny the Motion to Dismiss or
in the Alternative for a More Definite Statement (“Motion to
Dismiss”) filed by Defendant United States Treasury Department
(the “Department”) on June 13, 2016 (ECF No. 10) to the extent
the Motion seeks dismissal of the Complaint filed by Plaintiff
Chandranita Ankton on October 23, 2015.
The Report recommends
that the Court grant the Motion to Dismiss to the extent the
Motion
seeks
a
more-definite
statement.
The
Report
also
recommends that the Court deny Ankton’s Motion for Leave to File
an Amended Complaint, filed on September 21, 2016.
(“Mot.
for
Leave
to
Amend”).)
Neither
party
has
(ECF No. 29
filed
any
objections to the Report, and the deadline for doing so has
passed.
(Report 16.)
For
the
following
reasons,
the
Report
is
ADOPTED,
the
Motion to Dismiss is DENIED to the extent it requests that the
Complaint be dismissed, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED to the
extent it requests a more-definite statement, and the Motion for
Leave is DENIED.
Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve the burden on
the federal judiciary by permitting the assignment of districtcourt 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
also
Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003).
v.
United
Baker
v.
“The district
judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to.”
P.
72(b)(3);
28
U.S.C.
§
636(b)(1).
After
Fed. R. Civ.
reviewing
the
evidence, the court is free to accept, reject, or modify the
magistrate
U.S.C.
judge’s
proposed
§ 636(b)(1).
The
findings
district
or
court
recommendations.
is
not
required
28
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).
should
adopt
the
magistrate
judge’s
which no specific objection is filed.
2
The district court
findings
and
Id. at 151.
rulings
to
Addressing the Motion to Dismiss’s request that the Court
dismiss
the
Complaint,
the
Magistrate
Judge
finds
that
“[c]onstruing the pleadings liberally, . . . Ankton’s complaint
cannot
be
dismissed
remedies.”
for
failure
(Report 10.)
to
exhaust
administrative
She finds also that, although the
Complaint is “skeletal and lacks factual allegations,” Ankton
“has sufficiently pled the essential elements of a claim for
retaliation.”
(Id. at 12.)
Addressing the Motion to Dismiss’s request that the Court
require
Ankton
to
provide
a
more-definite
statement,
the
Magistrate Judge finds that “[t]he complaint itself contains no
facts in support of a retaliation claim and the court has had to
construe Ankton’s claims by referring to the agency decisions
attached by the Department.”
permissibility
of
considering
motion to dismiss).)
should
provide
a
(Id.; cf. id. at 3 n.1 (explaining
these
materials
in
context
of
The Magistrate Judge opines that Ankton
more-definite
statement
that
includes
following:
(1) the specific, protected activity she
participated in; (2) facts indicating that
the Department knew of this exercise of
protected
activity;
(3)
the
specific
instances where the Department took adverse
action against Ankton, or the specific
instances of severe or pervasive retaliatory
harassment by a supervisor; and (4) facts
showing that the adverse action had a causal
connection to the protected activity.
3
the
(Id. at 12–13.)
attach
any
appeals
The Magistrate Judge opines that Ankton “must
complaint
she
filed
Commission].”
she
with
(Id.)
filed
the
with
the
[Equal
Department
Employment
and
any
Opportunity
Ankton “must limit [her] statements to
facts she has already alleged in [her prior claims filed with
the Department] or any cases she attaches.”
(Id. at 13.)
Addressing the Motion for Leave to Amend, the Magistrate
Judge finds that the allegations Ankton proposes to add to the
Complaint “were not presented in her original complaint or in
her EEO charges of retaliation that have been presented to the
court.”
(Id. at 15.)
Because Ankton has not alleged that she
presented these new proposed claims to the Department through
its administrative EEO process, the Magistrate Judge concludes
that “allowing Ankton to amend her complaint to state new causes
of action would be futile, as these claims would be barred for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”
The
Report
requires
that
any
(Id.)
objections
within fourteen (14) days after service.
must
be
filed
(Id. at 16; see also
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“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 rules of court.”).)
Because no party has objected, Arn counsels the Court to
adopt the Report in its entirety.
4
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 Report is ADOPTED.
The
Motion to Dismiss is DENIED to the extent it requests that the
Complaint be dismissed, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED to the
extent it requests a more-definite statement, and the Motion for
Leave to Amend is DENIED.
In accordance with the Magistrate
Judge’s Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Additional Time to
File a Response (ECF No. 35), the deadline for Ankton’s moredefinite statement shall be January 9, 2017.
So ordered this 30th day of December, 2016.
/s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr. __
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?