Delk v. Banyan Labs et al

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING 10 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR PARTIAL SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Mark S. Norris on 11/22/2024. (Norris, Mark)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
ADRIAN D. DELK,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:24-cv-2432-MSN-atc
JURY DEMAND

BANYAN LABS,
NADIA MCKENZIE, and
STACEY BROOKS,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR PARTIAL SUA
SPONTE DISMISSAL
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation for Partial Sua
Sponte Dismissal (ECF No. 10, “Report”) entered November 5, 2024. The Report recommends
that Plaintiff’s claims against Nadia McKenzie and Stacey Brooks (“Individual Defendants”) be
dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
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-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 Magistrate Judge entered the Report on November 5, 2024. The Report explained that
written objections to the Report could be filed within 14 days after a party was served with a copy
of the Report and also warned that failure to file objections within 14 days may constitute
waiver/forfeiture of objections, exceptions, and further appeal. To date, no objections have been
filed and the deadline for doing so has expired.

2

The Court has reviewed the Report for clear error and finds none. Therefore, the Court
ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation for Partial Sua Sponte Dismissal
(ECF No. 10) in its entirety. Plaintiff’s claims for violations of Title VII against Nadia McKenzie
and Stacey Brooks are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of November, 2024.
s/ Mark S. Norris
MARK S. NORRIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3