Hickman v. Oxford Immunotec Global PLC

Filing 24

ORDER denying without prejudice 9 Motion to Consolidate Cases; adopting 15 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 03-27-2018. (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-2734-SHM-tmp

ORDER
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (the “Report”), submitted on February 22, 2018.
(ECF No. 15.)

The Report recommends denying Defendant Oxford

Immunotec Global PLC’s (“Oxford”) Motion to Consolidate and
Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for a More Definite
Statement (ECF No. 9) “as moot and without prejudice.”

(Id.)

Oxford has not objected, and the deadline to do so has passed.
On October 4, 2017, Hickman filed a pro se complaint
against Oxford based on her Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (“EEOC”) Charge of Discrimination, alleging

retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964.

(Compl., ECF No. 1.)1

On December 12, 2017, Oxford filed its Motion to
Consolidate and Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for a
More Definite Statement.

(ECF No. 9.)

On December 29, 2017,

United States Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham granted Oxford’s
Motion to Consolidate this action with Hickman v. Oxford
Immunotec Global PLC, 2:17-2299-SHM-tmp (W.D. Tenn.).
10.)

(ECF No.

The Magistrate Judge reserved ruling on Oxford’s Motion

to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for a More Definite
Statement for a Report and Recommendation.

(Id.)

On January 31, 2018, Hickman filed a Motion to Amend
Complaint.

(ECF No. 12.)

The Magistrate Judge granted

Hickman’s Motion to Amend Complaint on February 22, 2018.

(ECF

No. 14.)
Also on February 22, 2018, the Magistrate Judge submitted
the Report.

(ECF No. 15.)

It recommends denying Oxford’s

Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for a More Definite
Statement without prejudice because Hickman’s amended complaint
1

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 retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964. (Hickman v. Oxford Immunotec Global PLC, 2:17-2299-SHM-tmp (W.D.
Tenn.), Compl., ECF No. 1.) Hickman’s October 4, 2017 complaint alleges
additional retaliatory acts in violation of Title VII arising from the same
incidents in her April 28, 2017 complaint.

2

supersedes her original complaint.

(Id. at 347.)2

Oxford did

not file an objection.
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
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.

2

Unless otherwise noted, all citations to the record refer to the
“PageID” number.

3

For the foregoing reasons, the Report is ADOPTED, and
Oxford’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for More
Definite Statement, is DENIED without prejudice.

So ordered this 27th day of March, 2018.

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

4