Ankton v. United States Treasury Department

Filing 40

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
WESTERN DIVISION

CHANDRANITA ANKTON,

Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES TREASURY
DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:16-cv-2736-SHM-dkv

ORDER

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
Treasury

Department

(ECF No. 38.)

(the

“Department”)

on

January

2017.

The Report recommends that the Court grant the

Motion as to its request to dismiss this action.
12.)

23,

(Report 3,

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
more-definite statement.

(Id. at 12.)

Neither party has filed

objections to the Report, and the deadline for doing so has
passed.

(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.
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 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
judge’s

proposed

§ 636(b)(1).

findings

or

recommendations.

28

U.S.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.
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).

Thomas

The district court should

adopt the magistrate judge’s findings and rulings to which no
specific objection is filed.

Id. at 151.

2

Addressing

the

Motion

to

dismiss,

the

Magistrate

Judge

notes that Ankton’s complaint, which alleges employment retaliation,

requires

“exhaustion

of

administrative

remedies”

prerequisite to filing suit in federal court.”
an

earlier

definite

order,

granting

statement,

a

Department

Ankton

was

ordered

(Report 8.)

motion
to

as

for

“provide

a

“a
In

more-

specific

facts supporting her retaliation claim,” including facts establishing

that

she

had

exhausted

her

administrative

(Id.; see also Order 3–4, ECF No. 36.)

remedies.

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.”

(Report 9.)

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
claim.

(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.

3

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.
with

the

474 U.S. at 151.
policies

Adopting the Report is consistent

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 Mo-

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.

This ac-

tion is DISMISSED.
So ordered this 20th day of June, 2017.

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

4