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)

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