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