The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
SHELIA POWELL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2:20-cv-02856-JTF-atc
)
BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, )
ET AL., )
)
Defendants. )
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT DEFENDANTS’ PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
______________________________________________________________________________
On November 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint against Defendants alleging racial
discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. (ECF No. 1.) On July 8, 2021, Defendants filed a
Partial Motion to Dismiss. (ECF Nos. 15 & 16.) After pro se Plaintiff failed to respond to the
Motion by her deadline to do so, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause on August 26, 2021.
(ECF No. 27.) On September 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed her Response to the Order. (ECF No. 30.)
Three days later, on September 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed her Response to the Motion. (ECF No.
32.) On January 13, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, which
recommended that Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss be granted. (See ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff
did not file any objections to the Report. For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and GRANTS Defendants’ Partial Motion to
Dismiss.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge provides, and this Court adopts and
incorporates the proposed findings of fact in this case. (ECF No. 41, 2-3.) As noted, Plaintiff
failed to file any objections to the Report.
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.) 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).
Usually, district court must review dispositive motions under the de novo standard. 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, Defendants’ Partial
Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff’s Response, Defendants’ Reply, and the Report and
Recommendation. (ECF Nos. 1, 15, 16, 32, 34 & 41.) As noted above, Plaintiff failed to file any
objections to the Report, and the time to do so has expired. Therefore, after a full de novo review
of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, including the “Proposed Findings of Fact”
and the “Proposed Conclusions of Law”, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation that Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s retaliation claims and claims against Defendant Etter are DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 17th day of March 2022.
s/John T. Fowlkes, Jr.
John T. Fowlkes, Jr.
United States District Judge