The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
ROBERT HERRON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2:18-cv-02862-JTF-cgc
)
MEGAN BRENNAN, )
Postmaster General, )
)
Defendant. )
_____________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO GRANT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
_ _____________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on April 30, 2021.
(ECF No. 50.) On June 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Response. (ECF No. 54.) On July 29, 2021, the
Magistrate Judge issued her Report and Recommendation (“Report”), which recommended that
Defendant’s Motion be Granted. (ECF No. 57.) Plaintiff did not file any Objections to the Report
within (14) days after being served with a copy of it. On September 28, 2021, the Court issued a
Show Cause Order and permitted Plaintiff an additional (14) days to file Objections and show
cause as to why the Court should not adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report. (ECF No. 58.)
However, Plaintiff did not file any Objections. For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and finds that Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment should be GRANTED.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
Plaintiff raised no factual Objections to the Report and Recommendation. Thus, this Court
adopts and incorporates, the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings of fact in this case. (See ECF
No. 57, 2-7.)
II. 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). Regarding those excepted dispositive motions, magistrate judges may still
hear and submit to the district court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 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.)
Usually, a district court must review dispositive motions under the de novo standard. Upon review,
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 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). However, 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). 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.
The Court has reviewed the record in this case, including the Complaint, Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff’s Response, Defendant’s Reply, and the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (ECF Nos. 1, 50, 54, 56 & 57.) As noted above, Plaintiff
has failed to file any Objections to the Report & Recommendation, and the time to do so has
expired. Therefore, after a full de novo review of the Magistrate Judges’ Report and
Recommendation, including the “Proposed Findings of Fact” and the “Proposed Conclusions of
Law”, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation that Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment be GRANTED.1 Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 18th day of October 2021.
s/John T. Fowlkes, Jr.
John T. Fowlkes, Jr.
United States District Judge
1 The Court notes that there is an error in the conclusion to the Magistrate Judges’ Report and Recommendation.
(ECF No. 57, 14.) There, the Magistrate Judge seemingly recommends that Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment be DENIED. However, after a full review of the record, including the Report and Recommendation, it is
clear that the Magistrate Judge’s intention was to Recommend that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be
GRANTED.