The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
CONNIE A. DAVIS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2:19-cv-02264-JTF-cgc
)
METHODIST LE BONHEUR HEALTHCARE, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
Before the Court is Defendant Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare’s (“Defendant” or
“Methodist”) Motion to Dismiss pro se Plaintiff Carrie Davis’ complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim; the Motion was filed on February 10, 2020. (ECF No. 13.)
Plaintiff did not file a response and she failed to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s order to
respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 14.)
The case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for management of all pretrial matters
pursuant to Administrative Order 13-05 and 28 U.S.C. § 636. (ECF No. 15 n.1.) The Magistrate
Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R. & R.”) on June 12, 2020, recommending that the
Court grant the Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 15.) Neither of the
parties filed objections to the R. & R. and their opportunity to do so has passed.1 28 U.S.C. §
1 Records provided by the Clerk of Court indicate that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13), the Order to Show Cause
(ECF No. 14), and the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15) were mailed to Plaintiff’s residence in Cordova,
Tennessee.
636(b)(1); LR 72.1(g)(2). For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice.
FACTUAL HISTORY
In the R. & R., the Magistrate Judge provides, and this Court adopts and incorporates,
proposed findings of fact in this case. (ECF No. 15, 1-17.)
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 standard of review that is applied by the district court 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.”). 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)).
This is consistent with the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 636, particularly to preserve judicial economy
and protect against the “duplication of time and effort” caused when “both the magistrate and the
district court perform identical tasks.” Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505,
509 (6th Cir. 1991).
ANALYSIS
The R. & R. provides a thorough analysis for each of Plaintiff’s claims, but ultimately
recommends that they be dismissed because of Plaintiff’s failure to respond to both the
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and the Court’s Order to Show Cause. (ECF Nos. 13 & 14.) The
Court agrees. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides:
If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a
defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the
dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any
dismissal not under this rule--except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue,
or failure to join a party under Rule 19--operates as an adjudication on the merits.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The Court finds, based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute her claim or to
respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, that the complaint should be dismissed in its entirety,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). In the absence of any party objections and having satisfied itself
that there is no clear error on the face of the record, the Court finds that the R. & R. should be
adopted.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS the R. & R. in its entirety and GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. 2
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of August 2020.
s/John T. Fowlkes, Jr.
JOHN T. FOWLKES, JR.
United States District Judge
2 Due to Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court notifies Plaintiff of her right to appeal pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provides: “In a civil case, except as provided in Rules 4(a)(1)(B), 4(a)(4), and
4(c), the notice of appeal required by Rule 3 must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of the
judgment or order appealed from.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).