Thomas v. Fayette County, Tennessee et al
ORDER Adopting DE 12 Report and Recommendations and Granting DE 9 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim signed by Judge John T. Fowlkes, Jr. on 2/15/2017. (Fowlkes, John)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
FAYETTE COUNTY; BOBBY RILES, Fayette
County Sheriff; TRAVIS DAVENPORT, Fayette County
Sheriff Deputy; LYNN SPARKS, Fayette County Secretary;
VIP LEWIS, Fayette County Chancery Court Clerk;
ED PULLIAM, Fayette County Circuit Court Clerk;
FAYETTE COUNTY JAIL; JOHN and JANE DOE, Shelby
County Jail Deputies; JOHN and JANE DOE, Fayette
County Jail Medical Providers; CITY OF PIPERTON;
MARK S MCDANIEL, City of Piperton Municipal Court
Prosecutor; WILLIAM CRAIG HALL, City of Piperton
Municipal Court Judge; TOMMIE JOHNSON, City of
Piperton Code Enforcement; ANGELA KERBY, City of
Piperton Municipal Court Clerk; DANIEL HYDE, City of
Piperton Police Officer; WAYNE WILLIAMS, City of
Piperton Police Officer; HENRY COATS, City of Piperton
City Mayor; HUGH DAVIS, City of Piperton City Vice
Mayor; MIKE BINKLEY, City of Piperton City
Commissioner; PRESTON TROTTER, City of Piperton City
Commissioner; MIKE ULCZYNSKI, City of Piperton City
Commissioner; STEPHEN STEINBACH, City of Piperton
City Manager; PHIL HENDRICKS, City of Piperton Police
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss filed on December 21, 2016. (ECF
No. 9). 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 January 26, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued her Report
and Recommendation that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be granted. (ECF No. 12). To date,
no objections have been filed.
After reviewing de novo the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,
Defendants’ Motion, and the entire record, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation.
A. Standard for District Court’s Review of a Report and Recommendation
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 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, 311, 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.”).
B. Standard for Motion To Dismiss
When assessing a plaintiff’s claim at the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b)(6) motion to dismiss
stage, the Sixth Circuit has stated that a complaint must allege sufficient facts to state a plausible
claim for relief, and that a reviewing court must “construe the complaint in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff and accept all allegations as true.” Keys v. Humana, Inc., 684 F.3d 605,
608 (6th Cir. 2012). “Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings
drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). However, pro se litigants “are
not exempt from the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Wells v. Brown, 891
F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989); see also Brown v. Matauszak, 415 F. App’x 608, 613 (6th Cir.
2011) (“[A] court cannot create a claim which [a plaintiff] has not spelled out in his pleading.”)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against Defendants in state court for violations of Civil
Rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and this complaint was removed to this Court on December 8,
2016. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff also filed a pro se complaint for violations of Civil Rights under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 in this Court on October 6, 2016. (2:16-cv-02801-JTF-dkv, ECF No. 1). The
complaints in both cases are identical in all aspects, and the two cases are assigned to the same
judges. Because of the identical nature of the two complaints, the Magistrate Judge recommends
that this lawsuit should be dismissed, and the parties proceed in the other action, 2:16-cv-02801JTF-dkv.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is Granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 15th day of February, 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?