Dotson v. Fayette County Board of Education et al

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING 29 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING 27 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Mark S. Norris on 4/21/2020. (Norris, Mark)

Case 2:18-cv-02088-MSN-cgc Document 30 Filed 04/21/20 Page 1 of 3

PageID 96

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
RODNEY DOTSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:18-cv-2088-MSN-cgc

FAYETTE COUNTY SCHOOLS,
MARLON KING,
NEKITA JOHNSON,
JOHN DOES 1-5, and
JANE DOES 1-5,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation dated April 6,
2020 (“Report”). (ECF No. 29.) The Report recommends that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
be granted. (Id. at PageID 95.)
Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve the burden on the federal judiciary by
permitting the assignment of district court 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.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). After reviewing the
evidence, the court is free to accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s proposed findings or

Case 2:18-cv-02088-MSN-cgc Document 30 Filed 04/21/20 Page 2 of 3

PageID 97

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. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). The district court should adopt the
magistrate judge’s findings and rulings to which no specific objection is filed. See id. at 151.
Objections to any part of a magistrate judge’s disposition “must be clear enough to enable
the district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.” Miller v. Currie, 50
F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995); see also Arn, 474 U.S. at 147 (stating that the purpose of the rule is
to “focus attention on those issues . . . that are at the heart of the parties' dispute.”). Each objection
to the magistrate judge’s recommendation should include how the analysis is wrong, why it was
wrong, and how de novo review will obtain a different result on that particular issue. See Howard
v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). A general objection, or one
that merely restates the arguments previously presented and addressed by the magistrate judge,
does not sufficiently identify alleged errors in the report and recommendation. Id. When an
objection reiterates the arguments presented to the magistrate judge, the report and
recommendation should be reviewed for clear error. Verdone v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 16-CV14178, 2018 WL 1516918, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2018) (citing Ramirez v. United States, 898
F. Supp. 2d 659, 663 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Dolgencorp,
LLC, 277 F. Supp. 3d 932, 965 (E.D. Tenn. 2017).
The deadline to object to the Report has passed, and neither Plaintiff nor Defendants have
filed objections. The Court has reviewed the Report for clear error and finds none. For the
foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Report and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

2

Case 2:18-cv-02088-MSN-cgc Document 30 Filed 04/21/20 Page 3 of 3

PageID 98

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 21st day of April 2020.
s/ Mark S. Norris
MARK S. NORRIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3