The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
ANTHONY D. HAYES, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) No. 2:19-cv-02312-JTF-jay
)
ELMINGTON PROPERTY )
MANAGEMENT, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
_____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CASE
_ _____________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jon York’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”),
filed December 20, 2019. (ECF No. 13.) The R&R recommends dismissal of Plaintiff Anthony
Hayes’ complaint, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), for his failure to prosecute and failure to comply
with two orders of the Court. (Id.) Neither party filed objections to the R&R. For the following
reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint.
FACTUAL HISTORY
In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge provides, and this Court adopts
and incorporates, proposed findings of fact in this case. (ECF No. 13, 2-6.)
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, “the 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 district court reviews a magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendation.
The standard of review that is applied 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.”). However, “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy
itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee notes. The district court is not required to review, and
indeed “should adopt the findings and rulings of the Magistrate Judge to which no specific
objection is filed.” Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of Shelby Cty. Sch., 47 F. Supp. 3d 665, 674 (W.D.
Tenn. 2014) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149, 106 S.Ct. 466, 472, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985)).
ANALYSIS
Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure gives district courts authority to dismiss
an action if the plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with either the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure or a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). A dismissal under Rule 41(b) acts as an
adjudication on the merits. Id. This authority is available to the district court “as a tool to effect
management of its docket and avoidance of unnecessary burdens on the tax-supported courts and
opposing parties.” Knoll v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 176 F.3d 359, 363 (6th Cir. 1999) (citation and
internal quotation omitted). There are four factors a court should consider before dismissing a
case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b):
(1) whether the party’s failure is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault; (2) whether
the adversary was prejudiced by the dismissed party’s conduct; (3) whether the
dismissed party was warned that failure to cooperate could lead to dismissal; and
(4) whether less drastic sanctions were imposed or considered before dismissal was
ordered.
Mager v. Wisconsin Cent. Ltd., 924 F.3d 831, 837 (6th Cir. 2019). Although none of these factors
are dispositive on their own, dismissal is appropriate if the record demonstrates delay or stubborn
disobedience on the part of the plaintiff. Id.
Here, the Magistrate Judge analyzed three of the four Mager factors before recommending
that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed.1 First, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s failure
to comply with the Magistrate Court’s August 29, 2019 order (ECF No. 10), directing him to file
a copy of his EEOC charging documents associated with his previously filed EEOC right to sue
letter, was “willful, in bad faith, and [Plaintiff’s] fault.” (ECF No. 13, 11.) This finding was
compounded by Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Magistrate Judge’s November 1, 2019 Order
to Show Cause, which directed Plaintiff to show “why the Magistrate Judge should not recommend
the dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for
failure to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s August 29, 2019, Order.” (ECF No. 12, 3.) To date,
Plaintiff has not responded to either of the Magistrate Court’s orders. The Magistrate Judge also
found that Plaintiff’s pro se status does not excuse his non-compliance, particularly because
Plaintiff is an experienced pro se litigant who, in at least one prior case, filed the type of documents
1 The Magistrate Judge found that the second factor is inapplicable in Plaintiff’s case and should not be
included in the Court’s analysis because, at the screening stage, the Defendants have not yet been served
and thus, Plaintiff’s conduct has not yet prejudiced them. (ECF No. 13, 10.) The Court agrees.
being sought through the Magistrate Judge’s order, which demonstrates that Plaintiff could
understand the court’s directive. (ECF No. 13, 11.) The Court agrees with the R&R’s finding that
the first factor, which considers Plaintiff’s willfulness, bad faith, and fault, favors dismissal of his
complaint.
Next, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Plaintiff was explicitly
warned on multiple occasions that his failure to comply with the court’s orders could result in the
dismissal of his case. (ECF No. 13, 11.) The R&R cites several places in the record where Plaintiff
received these warnings. (Id.) As one example, the Order to Show Cause specifically warned
Plaintiff that “his failure to respond to this Order and/or failure to show cause may result in a report
and recommendation to the presiding district judge of dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule
41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (Id.) The Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to
heed these warnings weighs in favor of dismissal.
Lastly, the Magistrate Judge found that there are no less drastic sanctions, other than
dismissal, that would be appropriate in this instance. The Court agrees. Plaintiff’s repeated failure
to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s orders and heed his warnings, lead this Court to conclude
that dismissal is the appropriate course of action here, and it does not leave open less drastic
sanctions.
CONCLUSION
Having reviewed the R&R, and in the absence of objections by either party, the Court finds
no clear error, and hereby ADOPTS the R&R and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint WITH
PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of January 2020.
s/John T. Fowlkes, Jr.
JOHN T. FOWLKES, JR.
United States District Judge