Walker v. Delta Medical Center - Acadia

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Order GRANTING 13 Motion to Dismiss; DENYING 18 Motion. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 08/09/2017. (Mays, Samuel)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

TRAYCE WALKER,

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

Plaintiff,
v.
DELTA MEDICAL CENTER-ACADIA,

Defendant.

No. 2:16-cv-02909-SHM-egb

ORDER

Before

the

Court

is

the

Magistrate

Judge’s

Report

Recommendation, dated July 10, 2017 (the “Report”).
20.)

and

(ECF No.

The Report recommends that the Court grant the Motion to

Dismiss filed by Defendant Delta Medical Center – Memphis, LLC
(“Delta”) on February 14, 2017 (ECF No. 13).1

Plaintiff Trayce

Walker

Report,

has

not

filed

any

objections

deadline for doing so has passed.
For

the

following

reasons,

to

the

and

the

ADOPTED

and

L.R. 72.1(g)(2).
the

Report

is

Delta’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

1

Delta represents that it is misidentified as “Delta Medical
Center-Acadia” in the complaint. (ECF No. 13 at 1.)

I.

BACKGROUND
On

November

against

17,

Delta,

2016,

Walker

asserting

filed

employment

a

pro

se

complaint

discrimination

and

retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C.

§§ 2000e,

et

seq.,

disability

discrimination

and

retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
42

U.S.C.

§§ 12112-12117,

slander,

and

“personal

vendetta.”

(ECF No. 1.)
On February 14, 2017, Delta filed the Motion to Dismiss.
(ECF No. 13.)

On March 9, 2017, Walker filed a “Motion for

Extension to Obtain Attorney” requesting a 30-day extension in
which to obtain counsel.

(ECF No. 16.)

On March 10, 2017, the

Court construed Walker’s motion as a motion for an extension of
time to file a response to Delta’s Motion to Dismiss and granted
the motion.

(ECF No. 17 at 1-2.)

The Court gave Walker until

April 14, 2017, to hire an attorney and file a response to the
Motion to Dismiss.
purposes
2017,

of

(Id. at 2.)

clarification,

regardless

representation.”

of

Walker

whether

(Id.)

The Court instructed, “For

or

must
not

respond

she

is

by

able

April
to

14,

obtain

The Court added, “Should Walker fail to

respond, the Court will consider whether the case should be
dismissed for failure to state a claim solely on the basis of
the arguments in Delta’s motion.”

2

(Id.)

On April 5, 2017, Walker filed a “Motion to Submit Appeal
Tribunal Decision on Doris Dickerson and request that she be
valid witness to testify on behalf of Plaintiff” (the “April 5
Motion”).

(ECF No. 18.)

Walker’s April 5 Motion asks the Court

to take notice of an Appeals Tribunal decision by the Tennessee
Department of Labor and Workforce Development and asks the Court
to take various actions.

(Id.; see ECF No. 18-1.)

Walker’s

April 5 Motion does not respond to Delta’s Motion to Dismiss.
On July 10, 2017, the Magistrate Judge entered the Report.
The Report notes that Walker has failed to respond to the Motion
to Dismiss.

(ECF No. 20 at 1.)

The Magistrate Judge decided

that (1) the Court lacks jurisdiction over Walker’s retaliation
claims

because

remedies,

she

has

(2) Walker’s

failed

to

slander

exhaust

claim

is

her
time

administrative
barred,

and

(3) Walker’s remaining claims should be dismissed for failure to
state a claim on which relief can be granted.

(Id. at 3-7.)

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant Delta’s
Motion to Dismiss and dismiss Walker’s complaint with prejudice.
(Id. at 7.)
II.

ANALYSIS
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)
3

(citing

Gomez

v.

United

States,

490

U.S.

858,

869-70

(1989));

see

Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003).

also

Baker

v.

For dispositive

matters, “[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part
of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly
objected

to.”

§ 636(b)(1).
accept,
findings

See

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

72(b)(3);

28

U.S.C.

After reviewing the evidence, the court is free to

reject,
or

or

modify

the

recommendations.

magistrate
28

U.S.C.

judge’s

proposed

§ 636(b)(1).

The

district court is not required to review -- under a de novo or
any

other

standard

--

those

aspects

of

recommendation to which no objection is made.
474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).

the

report

and

Thomas v. Arn,

The district court should adopt the

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

Id. at 151.

Walker has not objected to the Report.
Report’s recommendations is warranted.

Adoption of the

See Arn, 474 U.S. at

150-51.
For

the

foregoing

reasons,

the

Delta’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
DENIED as moot.

Report

is

ADOPTED

and

The April 5 Motion is

Walker’s complaint against Delta is DISMISSED

with prejudice.

So ordered this 9th day of August, 2017.

4

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

5