stating that the purpose of the rule is to “focus attention on those issues . . . that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.”
How later courts described this case
- stating that the purpose of the rule is to “focus attention on those issues . . . that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
CRADELL LEAKE,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 2:23-cv-2388-MSN-tmp
KROGER,
TEAMSTERS UNION,
ED HOUSTON, and
BARRY BROWN,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 36,
“Report”). The Report recommends that the Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Ed Houston, Barry
Brown, and Teamsters Local 667 (“Union”) (collectively, the “Union Defendants”), filed February
14, 2024 (ECF No. 16, “Motion”) be granted.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
On June 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint against the Union Defendants and
Kroger, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to
2000e-17 (“Title VII”); the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621–
34 (the “ADEA”); and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112–17 (the
“ADA”). (ECF No. 1.) On November 30, 2023, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and
Recommendation recommending Plaintiff’s ADEA claims be dismissed and that process be issued
for his remaining claims, and this Court adopted that Report in Recommendation in full on
December 20, 2023. (See ECF Nos. 9 & 10.) Thus, only Plaintiff’s Title VII and ADA claims
remain.
After discussing the relevant facts, the Report concludes (1) that Plaintiff failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies against the Union Defendants because he did not file an EEOC charge
of discrimination against them, and (2) that Defendants Houston and Brown cannot be held
individually liable under Title VII or the ADA. Based on those findings, the Report recommends
that the Union Defendants’ Motion be granted.
Magistrate Judge Christoff issued her Report on May 30, 2024. The Report warned that
objections were due within 14 days of being served with a copy of the Report and failure to object
may constitute a waiver of any objections, exceptions, and any further appeal. To date, no
objections to the Report’s findings or recommendations have been filed, and the deadline for doing
so has expired. The Court has reviewed the Report for clear error and finds none. Accordingly,
the Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety and DISMISSES with prejudice all Plaintiff’s
remaining claims against Defendants Ed Houston, Barry Brown, and Teamsters Local 667.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 17th day of June, 2024.
s/ Mark S. Norris
MARK S. NORRIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE