McClure v. Memphis Light Gas & Water
ORDER adopting DE 21 Report and Recommendations signed by Judge John T. Fowlkes, Jr. on 6/26/2017. (Fowlkes, John)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WANDA STOKES McCLURE,
MEMPHIS LIGHT GAS & WATER,
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
This case was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for management and for all
pretrial matters for determination and/or report and recommendation as appropriate. (Admin.
Order 2013-05, April 29, 2013).
On May 2, 2017, Judge Bryant issued a Report and
Recommendation that Wanda Stokes McClure’s (“Plaintiff”) case should be dismissed for failure
to comply with a Court Order. (ECF No. 21). To date, no objections have been filed.
After a de novo review, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
The district court has the authority to refer certain pre-trial matters to a magistrate judge
for resolution. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Callier v. Gray, 167 F.3d 977, 980 (6th Cir. 1999). These
referrals may include non-dispositive pretrial matters, such as a motion to compel or a motion for
a protective order concerning discovery. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The district court has
appellate jurisdiction over any decisions the magistrate judge issues pursuant to such a referral.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The referrals may also include dispositive matters such as a motion for
summary judgment or a motion for injunctive relief. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). When a
dispositive matter is referred, the magistrate judge’s duty is to issue proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for disposition, which the district court may adopt or not. “The district judge
may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return
the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The standard of review that is applied by the district court depends on the nature of the
matter considered by the magistrate judge. If the magistrate judge issues a non-dispositive
pretrial order, the district court should defer to that order unless it is “found to be clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). However, if the
magistrate judge’s order was issued in response to a dispositive motion, the district court should
engage in de novo review of all portions of the order to which specific written objections have
been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Baker v. Peterson, 67 Fed. App’x.
308, 310, 2003 WL 21321184 *2 (6th Cir. 2003) (“A district court normally applies a ‘clearly
erroneous or contrary to law’ standard of review for non[-]dispositive preliminary measures. A
district court must review dispositive motions under the de novo standard.”).
Plaintiff filed her Complaint on September 30, 2016. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff also filed an
Amended Complaint on October 11, 2016. (ECF No. 6). On February 28, 2017, the Magistrate
Judge noted that service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 had not been timely made. As a result, the
Court ordered Plaintiff to effect service and file proof of service by April 14, 2017. (ECF No.
19). Due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order, Judge Bryant recommended
dismissal of this action on May 2, 2017.
To date, Plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 or filed any
objections to Judge Bryant’s Report and Recommendation. Therefore, this Court ADOPTS the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 26th day of June, 2017.
s/John T. Fowlkes, Jr.
John T. Fowlkes, 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?