# Anderson v. Drug Enforcement Administration

> District Court, W.D. Tennessee · August 7, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10439986

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** August 7, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10439986

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________

CANTRAL JAMES ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 2:20-cv-02071-MSN-cgc

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION,
and DEA AGENTS, Four White Men,

Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
______________________________________________________________________________

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Charmaine Claxton’s Report and Recommendation
(“Report”), submitted on July 23, 2020. (ECF No. 7.) The Report recommends that Plaintiff’s
complaint be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. (Id. at PageID 12.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report and the time
to do so has passed. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court ADOPTS the Report and
DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 59, a district
court may refer a motion to suppress to a magistrate judge for the preparation of a report and
recommendation. “The magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings and enter
on the record a recommendation for disposing of the matter, including any proposed findings of
fact.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(1). If a party files timely objections to the recommendation, the district
court must consider those objections de novo and “accept, reject, or modify the recommendation.”
Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3).
“The filing of objections to a magistrate’s report enables the district judge to focus attention
on those issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.” Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985). Therefore, objections to a magistrate judge’s report must be “specific.”

Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2). Vague, general, or conclusory objections are improper, will not be
considered by the reviewing court, and are “tantamount to a complete failure to object.” Cole v.
Yukins, 7 F. App’x 354, 356 (6th Cir. 2001); see also Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir.
1995) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate’s report, which fails to specify the issues of
contention, does not satisfy the requirement that an objection be filed. The objections must be clear
enough to enable the district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.”).
The Court need not review—under a de novo or any other standard—those aspects of a
report and recommendation to which no objection is made. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150–52
(1985). Failure to object to a magistrate judge’s findings or conclusions results in waiver of those
objections. Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2). A district judge should adopt the findings and rulings of the

magistrate judge to which no specific objection is filed. Brown v. Board of Educ., 47 F. Supp. 3d
665, 674 (W.D. Tenn. 2014).
Here, the deadline to object to the Report has passed, and Plaintiff has not filed any
objections. The Court has reviewed the Report for clear error and finds none. For the foregoing
reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Report and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915.

2
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of August, 2020.

s/ Mark Norris
MARK S. NORRIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10439986. Public record. Not legal advice.