Hickman v. Oxford Immunotec Global PLC

Filing 40

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations 37 , and denying Motion to Dismiss 33 . Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 2/13/2017. (Mays, Samuel)

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

MONICA HICKMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
OXFORD IMMUNOTEC GLOBAL PLC,
Defendant.

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

No. 17-cv-2299-SHM-tmp

ORDER

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (the “Report”), dated January 18, 2018.
No. 37.)

(ECF

The Report recommends that Defendant Oxford Immunotec

Global PLC’s (“Oxford”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Monica
Hickman’s second amended complaint (ECF No. 33) be denied.
(Id. at 458.) 1

Oxford has not filed an objection, and the

deadline to do so has passed.

For the following reasons, the

Report is ADOPTED, and Oxford’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
On April 28, 2017, Hickman filed a pro se complaint
against Oxford based on her Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (“EEOC”) Charge of Discrimination, alleging
discrimination based on race, age, and disability, as well as

1

number.

Unless otherwise noted, all record citations refer to the PageID

retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
(Compl., ECF No. 1.) 2

of 1964.

On May 19, 2017, Hickman filed an amended complaint.

(Am.

Compl., ECF No 9.)
On July 21, 2017, Oxford filed a Motion for More Definite
Statement.
2017.

(ECF No. 21.)

(ECF No. 30.)

Hickman responded on August 22,

United States Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham

granted the Motion for More Definite Statement on October 19,
2017, and ordered Hickman to file an amended complaint by
November 15, 2017.

(ECF No. 31.)

Hickman filed her second amended complaint on November 13,
2017.

(ECF No. 32.)

On November 27, 2017, Oxford filed its

Motion to Dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to
comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 & 10.
33.)

(ECF No.

On December 27, 2017, Hickman responded, and requested

leave to file a third amended complaint to comply with Rules 8
& 10.

(ECF No. 34.)

No. 35.)

Oxford replied on January 10, 2018.

(ECF

On January 18, 2018, the Magistrate Judge granted

Hickman leave to file her third amended complaint by January
23, 2018.

(ECF No. 36.)

Hickman filed a third amended

complaint on January 22, 2018.

(ECF No. 38.)

2

On October 4, 2017, Hickman filed another complaint against Oxford
for additional retaliatory acts in violation of Title VII. (Hickman v.
Oxford Immunotec Global PLC, 2:17-cv-2734-SHM-tmp, ECF No. 1 (Oct. 4, 2017
W.D. Tenn.).

2

Also on January 18, 2018, the Magistrate Judge entered the
Report.

(ECF No. 37.)

It recommends the Court deny Oxford’s

November 27, 2017 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice.
459.)

(Id. at

The Report explains that:

As the third amended complaint will supersede the
second amended complaint, the undersigned recommends
that the court deny Oxford’s pending motion based on
the second amended complaint as moot and without
prejudice. See Greenwood v. City of Memphis, No. 142442-JDT-TMP, 2014 WL 4966324, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Oct.
2, 2014) (citing B & H Med., L.L.C. v. ABP Admin.,
Inc., 526 F.3d 257, 267 n. 8 (6th Cir. 2008)) (other
citations omitted). If appropriate, Oxford may renew
its motion after Hickman files her amended complaint.
(Id.)
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, 237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 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).

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.”
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28

After reviewing the evidence, the court is

free to accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s
proposed findings or recommendations.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The district court is not required to review -- under a de novo
3

or any other standard -- those aspects of the report and
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.

Oxford has not objected to the Report.
Report should be adopted.

Therefore, the

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

For the foregoing reasons, the Report is ADOPTED, and
Oxford’s Motion to Dismiss the second amended complaint is
DENIED without prejudice.

So ordered this 13th day of February, 2018.
/s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr.
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4