The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
JOE WILLIE JACKSON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2:20-cv-02549-JTF-tmp
)
MIDLAND MORTGAGE COMPANY and )
MINNESOTA LIFE INSURANCE )
COMPANY, )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND GRANTING DEFENDANT MIDLAND MORTGAGE COMPANY’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
Before the Court is Defendant Midland Mortgage Company’s Motion to Dismiss, filed on
September 4, 2020. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff Joe Willie Jackson filed a Response in Opposition on
September 25, 2020. (ECF No. 11.) Defendant Midland filed its Reply on October 12, 2020.
(ECF No. 25.) On October 22, 2020, the Chief Magistrate Judge entered a Report and
Recommendation to grant Defendant Midland’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 30.) Plaintiff
submitted a filing on October 26, 2020, which this Court construes as Objections to the Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 31.) So construed, Plaintiff’s Objections are unresponsive to the
Report and Recommendation. (Id.) For the reasons provided below, the Court ADOPTS the Chief
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and GRANTS Defendant Midland’s Motion to
Dismiss.
FACTUAL OBJECTIONS
In the Report and Recommendation, the Chief Magistrate Judge provides, and this Court
adopts and incorporates, proposed findings of fact in this case. (ECF No. 30, 1–5.) Plaintiff
appears to recite facts provided in the Report and Recommendation and simultaneously attempt to
object to some of the Chief Magistrate Judge’s factual findings. (ECF No. 31, 2–3, 7.) However,
any factual objections set forth by Plaintiff are unintelligible, and further, are not material to the
ultimate inquiry—whether res judicata bars Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Midland.
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, 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.
The Court notes that “[o]verly general objections do not satisfy the objection requirement.”
Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d 721, 725 (6th Cir. 2006). Furthermore, “[f]ailure to identify
specific concerns with a magistrate judge’s report results in treatment of a party’s objections as a
general objection to the entire” report and recommendation. McCready v. Kamminga, 113 F.
App’x 47, 49 (6th Cir. 2004). In turn, “[a] general objection is considered the equivalent of failing
to object entirely.” Id. A district judge should adopt the findings and rulings of the magistrate
judge to which no specific objection is filed. Brown, 47 F. Supp. 3d at 674.
ANALYSIS
A district court is not required to review “a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under
a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.” Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 150 (1985). The Chief Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s claims are precluded by
res judicata. (ECF No. 30, 7.) Plaintiff has failed to properly object to the legal conclusions in
the Report and Recommendation, and the time to do so has expired. (ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff’s
Objections restate arguments made in Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant Midland’s Motion to
Dismiss. (ECF Nos. 11-1, 1 & 31, 7.) The attachments to Plaintiff’s Objections are also largely
attachments that were included with Plaintiff’s Response to the Motion to Dismiss. (ECF Nos.
31-1 & 11-6 & 11-7.) Additionally, Plaintiff’s Objections are largely unintelligible and do not
address the issue of res judicata. (ECF No. 31, 1–7.) Being unresponsive to the Report and
Recommendation, Plaintiff’s Objections are properly construed as a general objection. Therefore,
after a full review, the Court adopts the Chief Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
and grants Defendant Midland Mortgage Company’s Motion to Dismiss.
CONCLUSION
Upon de novo review, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Chief Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation and GRANTS Defendant Midland Mortgage Company’s Motion to
Dismiss. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Midland Mortgage Company are DISMISSED
with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of April, 2021.
s/ John T. Fowlkes, Jr.
JOHN T. FOWLKES, JR.
United States District Judge