McDonald v. Schriner et al

Filing 54

ORDER finding as moot DE 19 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; finding as moot DE 21 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; finding as moot DE 23 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; adopting Report and Recommendations re DE 31 Report and Recommendations signed by Judge John T. Fowlkes, Jr. on 6/1/2018. (Fowlkes, John)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
Case No. 2:18-cv-02084-JTF-dkv
)
ROBERT SCHRINER, Head of Baptist Sleep
)
Disorders Center; BAPTIST SLEEP
)
DISORDER CTR.; BAPTIST MEM’L HOSP.; )
WEST-WARD PHARM. CORP.; GLENMARK )
PHARM., INC.; GLENMARK PHARM., INC., )
USA; GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC;
)
GLAXOSMITHKLINE CONSUMER
)
HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS (US) LLC; and
)
WALGREENS,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________________________________________________
CHARLES W. MCDONALD,

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DENY AS MOOT DEFENDANTS BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND
BAPTIST SLEEP DISORDER CENTER’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND DEFENDANT
ROBERT SCHRINER’S MOTION TO DISMISS
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court are Defendants Baptist Memorial Hospital and Baptist Sleep Disorder
Center’s Motion to Dismiss filed February 14, 2018, and Defendant Robert Schriner’s Motion to
Dismiss filed on February 21, 2018. (ECF Nos. 19 & 23; see also ECF No. 21.) The Motions
were referred to the Chief Magistrate Judge. On March 12, 2018, the Chief Magistrate Judge
issued a Report and Recommendation on Defendants’ Motions suggesting that Plaintiff’s
Voluntary Dismissal of Dr. Robert Schriner, Baptist Sleep Disorder Center, and Baptist
Memorial Hospital, (ECF No. 24), rendered the Motions moot. (ECF No. 31, 2.) No Objections
to the Report and Recommendation were submitted.

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

Congress passed 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) “to relieve some of the burden on the federal courts
by permitting the assignment of certain district court duties to magistrates.” United States v.
Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 2001). Pursuant to the provision, magistrate judges may hear
and determine any pretrial matter pending before the Court, except various dispositive motions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Upon hearing a pending matter, “[T]he magistrate judge must enter a
recommended disposition, including, if appropriate, proposed findings of fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(1); see also Baker v. Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003). Any party who
disagrees with a magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendation may file written objections
to the report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
The standard of review that is applied by the district court depends on the nature of the
matter considered by the magistrate judge. See Baker v. Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310 (6th
Cir. 2003) (citations omitted) (“A district court normally applies a ‘clearly erroneous or contrary
to law’ standard of review for nondispositive preliminary measures. A district court must review
dispositive motions under the de novo standard.”). Upon review of the evidence, the district
court may accept, reject, or modify the proposed findings or recommendations of the magistrate
judge. Brown v. Board of Educ., 47 F. Supp. 3d 665, 674 (W.D. Tenn. 2014); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).

The court “may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the

[m]agistrate [j]udge with instructions.” Moses v. Gardner, No. 2:14-cv-2706-SHL-dkv, 2015
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29701, at *3 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 11, 2015). A district judge should adopt the
findings and rulings of the magistrate judge to which no specific objection is filed. Brown, 47 F.
Supp. 3d at 674.

2

II.

ANALYSIS

The Chief Magistrate Judge recommends that the Motions filed by Baptist Memorial
Hospital, Baptist Sleep Disorder Center, and Robert Schriner, to dismiss the Complaint for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction, be denied as moot. (ECF No. 31, 2.) This Court agrees with that
conclusion. As a result of Plaintiff’s Voluntary Dismissal, (ECF No. 24), Baptist Memorial
Hospital, Baptist Sleep Disorder Center, and Robert Schriner were previously dismissed from
this lawsuit. (ECF No. 29.) Accordingly, the instant Motions before the Court are moot.
III.

CONCLUSION

Upon de novo review, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation to DENY as moot Defendants Baptist Memorial Hospital, Baptist Sleep
Disorder Center, and Robert Schriner’s Motions to Dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED on this 1st day of June 2018.

s/John T. Fowlkes, Jr.
John T. Fowlkes, Jr.
United States District Judge

3