Walker v. Delta Medical Center - Acadia
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
DELTA MEDICAL CENTER-ACADIA,
Recommendation, dated July 10, 2017 (the “Report”).
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
deadline for doing so has passed.
Delta’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
Delta represents that it is misidentified as “Delta Medical
Center-Acadia” in the complaint. (ECF No. 13 at 1.)
retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
(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
(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.
(Id. at 2.)
The Court instructed, “For
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.”
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
(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.)
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
(ECF No. 20 at 1.)
The Magistrate Judge decided
that (1) the Court lacks jurisdiction over Walker’s retaliation
(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.)
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,
Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003).
matters, “[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part
of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly
After reviewing the evidence, the court is free to
district court is not required to review -- under a de novo or
recommendation to which no objection is made.
474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).
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
Delta’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
DENIED as moot.
The April 5 Motion is
Walker’s complaint against Delta is DISMISSED
So ordered this 9th day of August, 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?