Craigmyle v. U.S. Government

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 12 14 17 . Signed by Judge Sheryl H. Lipman on 4/27/18. (Lipman, Sheryl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
LARRY CRAIGMYLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. GOVERNMENT,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:17-cv-02492-SHL-cgc

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Charmiane G. Claxton’s Report and
Recommendation, filed March 16, 2018, recommending that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be
granted because Plaintiff filed this medical malpractice claim well beyond Tennessee’s three
year statute of repose. (ECF No. 17.) Additionally, Magistrate Judge Claxton recommended that
Plaintiff’s Motion for Failing to Respond within the Allocated Time be dismissed as moot. (Id.)
For the following reasons, the Reports is ADOPTED.
A magistrate judge may submit to a judge of the court recommendations for the
determination of certain pretrial matters. 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A)–(B). “Within 14 days after
being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific
written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see
also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A district court reviews de novo only those proposed findings of fact
or conclusions of law to which a party specifically objects. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). “A general objection that does not identify specific issues from the
magistrate’s report is not permitted because it renders the recommendations of the magistrate
useless, duplicates the efforts of the magistrate, and wastes judicial economy.” Johnson v.
Brown, 2016 WL 4261761, at *1 (E.D. Kent. August 12, 2016) (citing Howard v. Sec’y of

Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)). After reviewing the evidence, the
court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made
by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Here, Magistrate Judge Claxton entered her Report on March 16, 2018. (ECF No. 17.)
On April 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Defendant[’s] Failure to Oppose Plaintiff’s Motion
for Summary Judgment, requesting that the Court grant him relief because Defendant had not
responded to his Motion for Summary Judgment in ninety-three days. 1 (ECF No. 18.) Four days
later, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Receiving Court File Late, reporting that he had just received the
Report on April 13, 2018, and asking the Court to consider his April 12, 2018 filing. (ECF No.
19).
In allowing deference to a pro se plaintiff, the Court will consider the April 12, 2018
Notice as Plaintiff’s objection to the Report. However, in the Notice, Plaintiff points to no
specific issues, and instead simply states that ninety-three days is more than the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure allow for a party to respond to a motion for summary judgment. Such a
generalized objection is not entitled to de novo review. Therefore, the Court reviews the Report
for clear error and finds none. Magistrate Judge Claxton’s Report is ADOPTED, and
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 27th day of April, 2018.
s/ Sheryl H. Lipman
SHERYL H. LIPMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

On January 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Conversions of the Complaint with
Attachments filed on January 14, 2017 and the Reply in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for
Dismissal filed on October 12, 2017 to a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 16.)
2