Smith v. West Tennessee State Penitentiary

Filing 15

ORDER granting 11 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; adopting 14 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 02-14-2018. (Mays, Samuel)

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

ERIN LaSHAE SMITH,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
WEST TENNESSEE STATE
PENITENTIARY (STATE OF
TENNESSEE),
Defendant.

No. 2:17-cv-02104-SHM-EGB

ORDER

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, dated January 24, 2018 (the “Report”).
14.)

(ECF No.

The Report recommends that the Court grant Defendant West

Tennessee State Penitentiary’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11;
see also ECF No. 12).

Plaintiff Erin LaShae Smith has not re-

sponded.
For the following reasons, the Report is ADOPTED.

Defend-

ant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
I.

Background
On February 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint

alleging discrimination in employment pursuant to Title VII of
the

Civil

Rights

Act

of

U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 200e-17.

1964,

as

amended

(ECF No. 1.)

(“Title

VII”),

42

The Complaint alleges

that Plaintiff was discriminated against on the basis of her
gender when she was terminated from her position as a correctional officer by Defendant on February 8, 2016.
at 7; ECF No. 1 at 4.)

On February 12, 2016, Plaintiff “file[d]

[her] step 1 appeal” challenging her termination.
at 8.)

(ECF No. 1-1

(ECF No. 1-1

On February 25, 2016, Plaintiff learned that she would

“get [her] job back.”

(Id.)

When Plaintiff returned to work on March 8, 2016, she was
assigned to work in a unit that was different from the unit she
had previously been assigned to.

(Id. at 8.)

Plaintiff alleges

that “gang members (Crip) . . . were assigned to that unit and
that pod.”

(Id.)

Plaintiff requested to be assigned to a dif-

ferent unit “due to safety concerns,” but her request was denied.

(ECF No. 1-2 at 9.)

Plaintiff alleges that “[there] have

been male officers that have lost their jobs and got it back and
[were] not made to work in one place. They were allowe[ed] to
move about the compound.”

(ECF No. 1-1 at 8.)

On May 4, 2017, Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss.
(ECF No. 11; see also ECF No. 12.)

The Motion to Dismiss seeks

“to dismiss the Complaint for insufficient service of process
filed pursuant to Rules 4, 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.”

(Id. at 32.)

On January 24, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge
Edward G. Bryant entered the Report.

2

(ECF No. 14.)

The

Report

recommends

that

Defendant’s

Motion

to

Dismiss

be

granted because Plaintiff “has failed to effectuate service
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5)” and
“failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
(Id. at 43.)
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)

(citing

Gomez

v.

United

States, 490 U.S. 858, 869-70 (1989)); see also Baker v. Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003).

A district court has

the authority to “designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge
of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for
the disposition, by a judge of the court, of any motion.”

28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
The district court has appellate jurisdiction over any decisions the magistrate judge issues pursuant to a referral.
U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

28

“A district judge must de-

termine de novo any part of a Magistrate Judge’s disposition
that has been properly objected to.”
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28

The district court is not required to

review -- under a de novo or any other standard -- “any issue

3

that is not the subject of an objection.”
U.S. 140, 150 (1985).

Thomas v. Arn, 474

The district court should adopt the find-

ings and rulings of the Magistrate Judge to which no specific
objection is filed.

Id.; United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d

947, 950 (6th Cir. 1981.)
Plaintiff has not objected to the Report, and the deadline
to do so under Local Rule 72.1 has passed.
636(b)(1)(C).
ranted.

See also 28 U.S.C. §

Adoption of the Report’s recommendations is war-

See Arn, 474 U.S. at 150-51.

III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Report is ADOPTED. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

So ordered this 14th day of February, 2018.

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

4