# Baugh v. Wilkie

> District Court, W.D. Tennessee · February 12, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10440301

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** February 12, 2021
- **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/10440301

## Opinion text

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

LORRAINE BAUGH, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) No. 2:20-cv-02093-JTF-tmp
)
ROBERT WILKIE, )
)
Defendant. )
_____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
______________________________________________________________________________

Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively, Motion to Request Issuance
of Show Cause Order of the United States, on behalf of Defendant Robert Wilkie, filed on October
16, 2020. (ECF No. 13.) The United States moves for dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m) and 12(b)(5), or alternatively, pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 4(i), requests a show cause order requiring service upon Defendant. (Id. at 1.)
The Chief Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation on December 4, 2020 and
therein, recommended that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be denied. (ECF No. 16.) No
objections were filed by either party. For the reasons provided herein, the Court ADOPTS the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to DENY Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
FACTUAL HISTORY
On February 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed her pro se Complaint against Robert Wilkie, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, alleging violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et
seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12112 et seq. (ECF
No. 1.) On February 10, 2020, the Chief Magistrate Judge entered an Order Granting Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 7), and a Report and Recommendation
on Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 8). The Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Complaint
recommended that the Title VII, ADA, and ADEA claims against Robert Wilkie be permitted to

proceed. (ECF No. 8, 4.) On March 12, 2020, this Court entered an Order Adopting in Part and
Rejecting in Part Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations and Partially Dismissing Case
(“March 12, 2020 Order”). (ECF No. 10.) This Court adopted the Chief Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation to allow the Title VII and ADEA claims against Defendant Wilkie to proceed.
(Id.) This Court directed the Clerk to issue and effect service of process for the Title VII and
ADEA claims against Defendant Wilkie. (Id. at 7.) On June 9, 2020, the United States Marshals
Office filed proof of service indicating that the summons for Defendant Wilkie was executed.
(ECF No. 12.)
LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), 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 judge’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, 67 F. App’x at 310 (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.”). Upon
review of the evidence, the district court may accept, reject, or modify the proposed findings or
recommendations of the magistrate judge. Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 47 F. Supp. 3d 665, 674 (W.D.

Tenn. 2014); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court “may also receive further evidence or
recommit the matter to the [m]agistrate [j]udge with instructions.” Moses v. Gardner, No. 2:14-
cv-2706-SHL-dkv, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29701, at *3 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 11, 2015). “Within 14
days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file
specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2). “When 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.
ANALYSIS
Because Defendant has not filed any Objections, the Court reviews the Chief Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee
notes. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) allows a party to move to dismiss a complaint for
insufficient service of process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i)
states that “[t]o serve a United States agency or corporation, or a United States officer or employee
sued only in an official capacity, a party must serve the United States and also send a copy of the
summons and of the complaint by registered or certified mail to the agency, corporation, officer,
or employee.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(2). As to service upon the United States, Rule 4(i) provides
that the serving party is required to:
(A)
(i) deliver a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the United States
attorney for the district where the action is brought—or to an assistant United
States attorney or clerical employee whom the United States attorney designates
in a writing filed with the court clerk—or

(ii) send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the civil-process clerk
at the United States attorney’s office;

(B) send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the Attorney General
of the United States at Washington, D.C.; and

(C) if the action challenges an order of a nonparty agency or officer of the
United States, send a copy of each by registered or certified mail to the agency or
officer.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1). Rule 4(m) provides a 90-day time limit for service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
As the Chief Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation indicates, because Plaintiff proceeds
in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) require a court to “order that
service be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed
by the court.” (ECF No. 16, 2.) See Byrd v. Stone, 94 F.3d 217, 219 (6th Cir. 1996).
Defendant’s Motion states that this Court’s March 12, 2020 Order directed service upon
Wilkie only and that accordingly, no service had been made upon the United States in compliance
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), (i)(1). (ECF No. 13, 2.) As the Chief Magistrate Judge found,
Defendant’s Motion attempts to hold Plaintiff responsible for the lack of service upon the United
States. (ECF Nos. 13, 3 & 16, 3–4.) Defendant’s Motion also requests that—should the Court
extend the service period upon a showing of good cause by Plaintiff—the Court enter a “show
cause order requiring Plaintiff to serve Defendant in an appropriate period.” (ECF No. 13, 4.) The
Chief Magistrate Judge rejected Defendant’s argument and found that Plaintiff is not responsible
for the service but that rather, such responsibility rests with the United States Marshals Office
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). (ECF No. 16, 3–4.) Reviewing for
clear error, the Court finds no reason to disturb this finding. Byrd, 94 F.3d at 219.
On December 4, 2020, the Chief Magistrate Judge entered an Order to Reissue and Effect
Service of Process Upon the United States. (ECF No. 15.) Therein, the Chief Magistrate Judge
“ordered that the Clerk shall reissue process, and the U.S. Marshals shall effect service upon the
United States in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1).” (Id. at 4.) The summons returned

executed, filed on December 29, 2020, indicates that Defendant Wilkie, the United States Attorney
General, and the United States Attorney for the Western District of Tennessee have been served.
(ECF No. 19.) Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively, Motion to Request
Issuance of Show Cause Order is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
Upon review for clear error, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Chief Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation to DENY Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of February, 2021.

s/John T. Fowlkes, Jr.
JOHN T. FOWLKES, JR.
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10440301. Public record. Not legal advice.