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)

Download PDF
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

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?