Hardy v. Baptist Desoto Hospital
ORDER ADOPTING 8 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Judge Mark S. Norris on 04/28/2021. (Norris, Mark)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Case No. 2:20-cv-02059-MSN-cgc
BAPTIST DESOTO HOSPITAL,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 8),
entered on January 19, 2021. The Report recommends that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed for
failing to state a claim for relief. (Id. at PageID 30.) To date, Plaintiff has not submitted any
objections to the Report’s findings.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation in its entirety.
Plaintiff commenced this matter on January 24, 2020, by filing her pro se Complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) In conjunction with the filing of her Complaint,
Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which was later granted. (ECF Nos. 2
and 7.) Plaintiff’s action arises out of a back injury she sustained while working for Defendant
Baptist Desoto Hospital. (Id. at PageID 2–3.)
The Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
(Id. at PageID 27–29.) In doing so, The Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff failed to state
a claim for which relief could be granted and recommended this matter be dismissed with
prejudice. (Id. at PageID 30.) Further, the Magistrate Judge also determined that an appeal in this
matter would not be taken in good faith. (Id. at PageID 31.)
The Magistrate Judge issued her Report and Recommendation on January 19, 2021. (ECF
No. 8.) The Magistrate Judge’s Report instructed Plaintiff that she had fourteen (14) days to file
her objections. (Id. at PageID 31.) The Report also warned that failure to timely do so “may
constitute a waiver of objections, exceptions, and any further appeal.” (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has
not filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation.
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.
As previously mentioned, Plaintiff has failed to file any objections to the Report and
Recommendation. The Court is not required to review any portion of the Report to which no
objection is made. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150. However, after reviewing the Report’s findings
and Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that
Plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation.
For the reasons above, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation in its entirety. This matter will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Further,
the Court CERTIFIES that an appeal in this matter would not be taken in good faith pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 28th day of April, 2021.
s/ Mark Norris
MARK S. NORRIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?