McMillin v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

NASHVILLE DIVISION

PAUL L. MCMILLIN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 3:22-cv-00294

) Judge Aleta A. Trauger

LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM

Before the court is pro se plaintiff Paul McMillin’s untitled response (Doc. No. 54) to

Magistrate Judge Jeff Frensley’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. No. 51), which the

court construes as objections to the R&R. The R&R recommends that the Motion for Summary

Judgment (Doc. No. 36) filed by defendant Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC (“Lowe’s”) be granted

and that this case be dismissed in its entirety. Lowe’s filed a Response (Doc. No. 55) to the

construed objections, arguing that the plaintiff’s objections are too vague to constitute proper

objections to any of the Magistrate Judge’s findings of fact or conclusions of law.

For the reasons set forth herein, the court finds that the plaintiff’s objections do not warrant

review. The court will accept the R&R in its entirety, grant the Motion for Summary Judgment,

and dismiss this case.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Within fourteen days after being served with a report and recommendation as to a

dispositive matter, any “party may serve and file specific written objections to [a magistrate

judge’s] proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The district court

must review de novo any portion of the report and recommendation “that has been properly

objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). In conducting its review, the district court “may accept,

reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to

the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.

However, 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. 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. Id. at 151. “The filing of vague, general, or

conclusory objections does not meet the requirement of specific objections and is tantamount to a

complete failure to object.” Cole v. Yukins, 7 F. App’x 354, 356 (6th Cir. 2001); see also Langley

v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 502 F.3d 475, 483 (6th Cir. 2007) (issues raised in a “perfunctory

manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation,” are waived (quoting Indeck

Energy Servs., Inc. v. Consumers Energy Co., 250 F.3d 972, 979 (6th Cir. 2000))). Likewise, “[a]

general objection to the entirety” of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation has the same

effect as a complete failure to object. Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505,

509 (6th Cir. 1991). Finally, arguments made in an objection to a magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation that were not first presented to the magistrate judge for consideration are deemed

waived. Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895, 902 n.1 (6th Cir. 2000).

Although pro se pleadings and filings are held to less stringent standards than those drafted

by lawyers, see, e.g., Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011), pro se litigants are not

entirely exempt from the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Wells v.

Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989).

II. BACKGROUND

McMillin filed this lawsuit against Lowe’s in April 2022, asserting employment-related

claims. (Doc. No. 1.) The operative pleading is now the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”)

(Doc. No. 25), in which McMillin asserts claims against Lowe’s for sex discrimination, sexual

harassment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”),

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a), 2000e-3(a); sex-based pay discrimination in violation of the Equal Pay

Act (“EPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1); and common law negligence.

Lowe’s moved for summary judgment on all claims against it. (Doc. No. 36.) The motion

is supported by a Memorandum of Law (Doc. No. 37), Statement of Undisputed Material Facts

(“SUMF”) (Doc. No. 38), and various exhibits, including excerpts from the plaintiff’s deposition

transcript and the declaration of several Lowe’s supervisors. (See Doc. No. 39 and attachments.)

McMillin filed a Response in opposition to the motion (Doc. No. 43), a “Memorandum of Points

and Authorities” (Doc. No. 44), and a Response to the defendant’s SUMF (Doc. No. 45), in which

he concedes that all but six of the defendant’s ninety-four separate statements of fact are

“undisputed for the purpose of ruling on the motion for summary judgment.” Lowe’s filed a Reply

(Doc. No. 46), asserting that the plaintiff’s filings fail to establish the existence of a material factual

dispute and that any new factual allegations included in his Response to the Motion for Summary

Judgment are not supported by the record. It also filed a Reply to the plaintiff’s Response to the

SUMF (Doc. No. 47), noting that, for each of the six factual statements the plaintiff purports to

dispute, he has not provided a record citation to support his allegations, nor has he shown that any

of the purported disputes materially advances his claims. The plaintiff filed an unauthorized sur-

reply, styled as a Reply, asserting only that the defendant’s motion should be denied, because his

claims deserve a “full airing,” “the facts supporting those claims thru a presentation at trial is the

only resolution,” and his demand for a jury trial should be honored. (Doc. No. 48, at 1.)

The Magistrate Judge issued the R&R, summarizing the undisputed facts set forth in the

defendant’s SUMF, finding that the plaintiff has not identified a material factual dispute, and

concluding that each of the plaintiff’s claims fails as a matter of law. (Doc. No. 51.)

The plaintiff’s construed objections include four pages of “comments” on the R&R’s

findings, largely agreeing with them. (Doc. No. 51, at 1–4.) The plaintiff does not contend—and

has not shown—that any of the factual findings in the R&R is incorrect or unsupported by the

record. The objections incorporate a “Discussion” that takes issue with the defendant’s practices

and repeats the plaintiff’s contention that each of his claims should be heard by a jury. McMillin

does not cite any caselaw or suggest that the Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusions are incorrect.

Instead, he states that the defendant’s “excerpts of case law in support of its Motion for Summary

Judgment . . . speak for themselves and are just another process to cover up the daily activities of

Lowe’s.” (Id. at 5.)

The plaintiff also attached to his objections an Affidavit. (Id. at 8–14.) The Affidavit for

the most part simply reiterates allegations made in the SAC and does not appear to include any

new facts that would create a material factual dispute or preclude summary judgment for the

defendant.

III. DISCUSSION

Although pro se pleadings and filings are held to less stringent standards than those drafted

by lawyers, see, e.g., Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011), pro se litigants are not

entirely exempt from the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Wells v.

Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). The pro se plaintiff’s objections in this case are not

sufficiently “specific” to qualify as properly lodged objections entitled to de novo review under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). The plaintiff objects generally to the fact that the defendant

seeks summary judgment and continues to maintain that the defendant’s practices are

inappropriate, but he has not contested the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings or legal conclusions.

The plaintiffs failure to lodge clear, specific objections to the R&R are not absolved by his pro se

status.

As for the filing of a new Affidavit, the court declines to consider new evidence presented

at this late stage in the proceedings. Moreover, even if the Affidavit had been presented in response

to the Motion for Summary Judgment, it does not include any facts that conflict materially with

the Magistrate Judge’s findings or that would preclude summary judgment.

Regardless, the court has reviewed the record in this case and agrees with the Magistrate

Judge’s findings and conclusions in their entirety. Finding no error in the R&R, and given the

absence of specific objections, the court will accept the R&R in its entirety and overrule the

plaintiff's construed objections.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the plaintiff's construed objections (Doc. No. 54) to the

Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. No. 51) will be overruled. The court will accept the R&R in its

entirety and grant the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 36). All other pending

motions will be denied as moot.

An appropriate Order is filed herewith.

ALETA A. hil

United States District Judge