# Crockett v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

> District Court, W.D. Tennessee · September 20, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10441165

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** September 20, 2022
- **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/10441165

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the purpose of the rule is to “focus attention on those issues . . . that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.”

## Opinion text

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

DIONNE L. CROCKETT,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:21-cv-2421-MSN-tmp

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
______________________________________________________________________________

Before the Court is the Chief Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”),
entered August 19, 2022. (ECF No. 14.) The Report recommends that Plaintiff Dionne Crockett’s
(“Plaintiff”) pro se Complaint, docketed June 21, 2021, (ECF No. 1), be dismissed without
prejudice. (See id.) For the reasons below, the Report is ADOPTED, and the Complaint is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve the burden on the federal judiciary by
permitting the assignment of district court duties to magistrate judges. See United States v. Curtis,
237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 869–70 (1989));
see also Baker v. Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003). For dispositive matters, “[t]he
district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been
properly objected to.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). After reviewing the
evidence, the court is free to accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s proposed findings or
recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court is not required to review—under a de
novo or any other standard—those aspects of the report and recommendation to which no objection
is made. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). The district court should adopt the
magistrate judge’s findings and rulings to which no specific objection is filed. See id. at 151.
Objections to any part of a magistrate judge’s disposition “must be clear enough to enable
the district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.” Miller v. Currie, 50

F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995); see also Arn, 474 U.S. at 147 (stating that the purpose of the rule is
to “focus attention on those issues . . . that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.”). Each objection
to the magistrate judge’s recommendation should include how the analysis is wrong, why it was
wrong, and how de novo review will obtain a different result on that particular issue. See Howard
v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). A general objection, or
one that merely restates the arguments previously presented and addressed by the magistrate judge,
does not sufficiently identify alleged errors in the report and recommendation. Id. When an
objection reiterates the arguments presented to the magistrate judge, the report and
recommendation should be reviewed for clear error. Verdone v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 16-CV-

14178, 2018 WL 1516918, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2018) (citing Ramirez v. United States, 898
F. Supp. 2d 659, 663 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Dolgencorp,
LLC, 277 F. Supp. 3d 932, 965 (E.D. Tenn. 2017).
The Court notes that “[p]ro se complaints are to be held ‘to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,’ and should therefore be liberally construed.” Williams v.
Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir.
2004)). Pro se litigants, however, are not exempt from the requirements of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. See Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989).
The Chief Magistrate Judge entered his Report on August 19, 2022. (ECF No. 14.)
Plaintiff and Defendant had 14 days to submit objections to the Report. Fourteen days have passed,
and neither Plaintiff nor Defendant has submitted any objections to the Report’s findings or
recommendations. The Court has reviewed the Report for clear error and finds none. Accordingly,
the Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 20th day of September, 2022.
s/ Mark S. Norris
MARK S. NORRIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10441165. Public record. Not legal advice.