# Brown v. State of Tennessee Human Resources

> District Court, W.D. Tennessee · October 25, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10670030

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** October 25, 2019
- **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/10670030

## Opinion text

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

TAMARA BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) No. 19-2613-TLP-tmp
v. )
)
STATE OF TENNESSEE HUMAN )
RESOURCES and STATE OF )
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF )
REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, )
)
Defendants. )

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT &
RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Tamara Brown sued pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendants
State of Tennessee Human Resources and State of Tennessee Department of Rehabilitative
Services engaged in “[e]mployment discrimination based on race, sex, color [, and] religion.”
(ECF No. 1 at PageID 2.) The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). (ECF
No. 7 at PageID 16.) For the reasons below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and DISMISSES
WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s complaint.
The Magistrate Judge found that Defendants’ sovereign immunity bars Plaintiff’s claim.
(Id. at PageID 19.) The Magistrate Judge found that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits citizens
from “suing their own states in federal court.” (Id. at PageID 18) (citing Welch v. Texas Dep't of
Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 472 (1987); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v.
Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1989)). The Magistrate Judge found that, although a State may
waive its sovereign immunity “at its pleasure,” Tennessee has not waived its sovereign
immunity. (Id. at PageID 18) (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-13-102(a)). The Magistrate Judge
also found that “a state is not a person against whom a § 1983 claim for money damages might
be asserted.” (Id. at PageID 19) (citing Lapides v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., 535

U.S. 613, 617 (2002)).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), “[w]ithin 14 days of being served with a
copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to
the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Plaintiff has not
objected to the R&R, and the time for filing objections has expired. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2),
6(d), 72(b)(2). “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is
no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b) advisory committee notes. Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds no clear error and
ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims WITH PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED, this 25th day of October, 2019.
s/Thomas L. Parker
THOMAS L. PARKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10670030. Public record. Not legal advice.