The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
MORRIS ET AL,
Plaintiffs,
v. No. 2:19-cv-02874-MSN-tmp
CITY OF MEMPHIS ET AL,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is Memphis Light, Gas, and Water (“MLGW”) and David Armstrong’s
Motion to Dismiss. Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2013-05, the case was referred to the
United States magistrate judge for management for all pretrial matters. Chief Magistrate Judge Tu
M. Pham’s submitted his Report and Recommendation (“Report”) on Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss. (ECF No. 52.) The Report recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants
MLGW and David Armstrong be dismissed. (Id. at PageID 198.) More than one month after the
objections were due, Plaintiffs have not filed an objection to the Report. For the reasons set forth
herein, the Court ADOPTS the Report and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants
MLGW and David Armstrong.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, a district court may refer a
pretrial motion 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. Civ.
P. 72(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. Civ. P.
72(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. Civ. P. 72(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. Cowherd v. Million, 380 F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 2004). 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 passed over one month ago, and Plaintiffs have
not filed any objections. The Court has reviewed the Report for clear error and finds none. For the
2
foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Report and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim
against Defendants MLGW and David Armstrong pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of February, 2021.
s/ Mark Norris
MARK S. NORRIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3