Brown v. Craft

Filing 9

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 8 . Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 03-30-2018. (Mays, Samuel)

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

ANTHONY BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRIS CRAFT, Judge,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:17-cv-02938-SHM-dkv

ORDER

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, dated January 31, 2018 (the “Report”).
8.)

(ECF No.

The Report recommends that the Court sua sponte dismiss

Plaintiff Anthony Brown’s claims against Defendant Judge Chris
Craft.

(Id. at 25.)

Plaintiff has not objected to the Report.

For the following reasons, the Report is ADOPTED.

The ac-

tion is DISMISSED.
I.

Background
On December 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint

for Violation of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
1.)

(ECF No.

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff previously filed a

complaint against Defendant with the Tennessee Board of Judicial
Conduct, but that the “case was dismissed by [Defendant].”
at 2.)

(Id.

Plaintiff alleges he has been “conspired against by

Judge

Lee

Coffee

and

[Defendant]”

and

that

“[c]onstitutional rights have been violated.”
requests

that

his

“case

[be]

overturned”

“[be] removed from being a Judge.”

Plaintiff’s

(Id.)

and

that

Plaintiff
Defendant

(Id. at 3.)

On December 28, 2017, Plaintiff also applied to proceed in
forma pauperis.

(ECF No. 2.)

On January 2, 2018, the Court en-

tered an Order granting Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis.

(ECF No. 7.)

On January 31, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Diane
K. Vescovo entered the Report.

(ECF No. 8.)

The Report “recom-

mends that [Plaintiff’s] claims against [Defendant] be dismissed
sua sponte for failure to state a claim on which relief may be
granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii).”
II.

(Id. at 25.)

Analysis

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.
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

2

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.
636(b)(1)(C).
ranted.

See also 28 U.S.C. §

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.
tion is DISMISSED.

3

The ac-

So ordered this 30th day of March, 2018.

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

4