Hopps v. Lowe's Home Center, LLC

Filing 8

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations 7 ; GRANTING Plaintiff's motion to proeed in forma pauperis; DISMISSING action. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 04-13-2018. (Mays, Samuel)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION TRAVIS I. HOPPS, Plaintiff, v. LOWE’S HOME CENTER, LLC, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 2:17-cv-02476-SHM-CGC ORDER Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, dated July 14, 2017 (the “Report”). (ECF No. 7.) The Report recommends that the Court sua sponte dismiss Plaintiff Travis Hopps’s claims against Defendant Lowe’s Home Center, LLC. (Id. at 29.)1 Plaintiff has not objected to the Report. For the following reasons, the Report is ADOPTED. The ac- tion is DISMISSED. I. Background On July 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint alleges: My alleged incident started Jan 2015 to Dane Parker Assistant store manager who [was] my supervisor for a year and 5 months before Mike Halley (ASM) took over 1 Unless otherwise noted, all pin cites for record citations are to the “PageID” page number. three months of my discharge. I reported numerous allegation from discrimination and retaliation to Dane Parker (ASM) about Mike Halley from Jan 2015 to Sept 2015 but I was unable to stop name calling like “BOY” come here or singling me out because I’m BLACK. Lowe’s did a poor job of protecting my right under law 501-1801, 47-18-802 and 50-7-303 from discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful discharge for misconduct of these codes. (Id. at 7.) es. Plaintiff requests $650,000 in compensatory damag- (Id. at 6.) On July 7, 2017, Plaintiff also applied to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) On July 14, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Charmiane G. Claxton entered the Report. (ECF No. 7.) The Report recom- mends that the complaint be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii) because “Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain the minimum requirement of a short and plain statement indicating his entitlement to relief.” (Id. at 29.) The Report recommends that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be granted. (Id. at 26.) The Report also recommends “that the Court CERTIFY, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal in this matter by Plaintiff would not be taken in good faith and Plaintiff may not proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.” II. (Id. at 30.) Analysis Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve the burden on the federal judiciary by permitting the assignment of district- 2 court 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 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. 3 See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). ranted. 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. tiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. tion is DISMISSED. The Court CERTIFIES that any PlainThe ac- appeal by Plaintiff would not be taken in good faith, and Plaintiff may not proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. So ordered this 13th day of April, 2018. /s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr. ___ SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4

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?