Ankton v. United States Treasury Department
ORDER adopting 39 Report and Recommendations, granting 38 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, and denying 38 Motion for More Definite Statement. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 06/20/2017. (Mays, Samuel)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
UNITED STATES TREASURY
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation dated March 2, 2017 (the “Report”).
(R. & R. on the
Def.’s Renewed Mot. to Dismiss or in the Alternative for a More
Definite Statement, ECF No. 39.)
The Report addresses the Re-
newed Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for a More Definite Statement (the “Motion”) filed by Defendant United States
(ECF No. 38.)
The Report recommends that the Court grant the
Motion as to its request to dismiss this action.
The Report also recommends that the Court deny the Motion
as to its request, in the alternative, for an order requiring
Plaintiff Chandranita Ankton to amend her complaint to provide a
(Id. at 12.)
Neither party has filed
objections to the Report, and the deadline for doing so has
(Id. at 12–13.)
For the following reasons, the Report is ADOPTED, the Motion is GRANTED to the extent it requests that the Complaint be
dismissed, and the Motion is DENIED as moot to the extent it requests a more-definite statement.
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.
See United States v. Curtis,
States, 490 U.S. 858, 869-70 (1989)); see also Baker v. Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003).
“The district judge
must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”
72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Fed. R. Civ. P.
After reviewing the evidence,
the court is free to accept, reject, or modify the magistrate
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.
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).
The district court should
adopt the magistrate judge’s findings and rulings to which no
specific objection is filed.
Id. at 151.
notes that Ankton’s complaint, which alleges employment retaliation,
prerequisite to filing suit in federal court.”
facts supporting her retaliation claim,” including facts establishing
(Id.; see also Order 3–4, ECF No. 36.)
The Report finds that
Ankton “has not presented any evidence that [the facts she asserts in support of her claims] were presented to the EEOC,” and
“has not attached to her Statement as ordered the relevant EEO
complaints or final agency decisions for which she seeks review
by this court.”
The Report recites the elements of
a Title VII retaliation claim and concludes that “Ankton has
failed to provide specific facts satisfying the elements” of her
(Id. at 11; see generally id. at 10–12.)
The Report does not address in detail its recommendation
that the Department’s request, in the alternative, for an order
requiring Ankton to provide a more-definite statement be denied.
(See generally id.)
The Report’s dismissal recommendation makes
the Department’s alternative request for a more-definite statement moot.
Any objections to the Report must be filed within fourteen
(14) days after service.
(Id. at 12–13; 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.
474 U.S. at 151.
Adopting the Report is consistent
§ 636 ––
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.
tion is GRANTED to the extent it requests that Ankton’s complaint be dismissed, and is DENIED as moot to the extent it requests an order demanding a more-definite statement.
tion is DISMISSED.
So ordered this 20th day of June, 2017.
/s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr.
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?