Cowans v. Abioto

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING 20 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING 12 MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Mark S. Norris on 6/10/2020. (Norris, Mark)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
WILLIE EARL COWANS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:20-cv-2024-MSN-tmp

WANDA ABIOTO, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”) on
Defendant DeSoto County Justice Court’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 20.) The Report
recommends that the Motion to Dismiss be granted. (Id. at PageID 235.) Additionally, the Report
recommends the remainder of the Complaint also be dismissed for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on June 9, 2020. (ECF No. 21.)
Defendant DeSoto County Justice Court has not filed a response to Plaintiff’s objections, and the
time for doing so has not yet expired; however, the Court finds a response from Defendant DeSoto
County Justice Court is unnecessary to decide this matter. For the reasons set forth below, the
Court ADOPTS the Report. Defendant DeSoto County Justice Court’s Motion to Dismiss is
GRANTED. The remaining claims in the Complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

1

STANDARD OF REVIEW
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
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-CV-

2

14178, 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).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s objections merely repeat the allegations in his Complaint and Amended
Complaint. For example, there are two pages of a letter that states he is objecting to the Report
because he is dealing with “a premediated high-profile conspiracy and fraud case to take [his]
land.” (ECF No. 21 at PageID 238–39.) These allegations were references in Plaintiff’s Complaint
(see ECF No. 1 at PageID 3) and referenced by the Magistrate Judge in his Report (see ECF No.
20 at PageID 230). Plaintiff has also attached several hundred pages of documents, which are
largely incomprehensible, and which appear to be copies of documents previously filed with his
Complaint and Amended Complaint or filed in response to the Magistrate Judge’s show cause
order directing Plaintiff to respond to the Motion to Dismiss. (See ECF Nos. 1, 4, 17-1, 17-2, 173, 17-4, 18.) In sum, Plaintiff’s repetitious arguments and incomprehensible documents do not
constitute objections.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, this Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report, and the Court GRANTS Defendant DeSoto County
Justice Court’s Motion to Dismiss. Additionally, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE
the remainder of the Complaint and Amended Complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 10th day of June 2020.
s/ Mark S. Norris
MARK S. NORRIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3