The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
PATRICIA WILLIAMS )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2:22-cv-02310-JTF-atc
)
FEDEX FREIGHT, LARAYE COLE, )
MONIQUE HOLLEY, RALPH PIPPEN, FNU )
DUWAN, and TIMOTHY ROBERTS, )
)
Defendants. )
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING INDIVIDUAL
DEFENDANTS
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is Defendants’ LaRaye Cole, Monique Holley, FNU Duwan, and Timothy
Roberts (“Individual Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss, filed on October 26, 2022. (ECF No. 22.)
Plaintiff filed a Response on December 29, 2022. (ECF No. 24.) Defendants filed a Reply on
January 5, 2023. (ECF No. 25.) The Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (“R
& R”) on May 19, 2023 advising the Court to grant the Motion and dismiss the Individual
Defendants from this matter. (ECF No. 37.) For the following reasons, the R & R should be
ADOPTED, and the Individual Defendants should be DISMISSED from this matter.
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). 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). A failure to file specific objections
to a Magistrate Judge’s report does not meet the requirement of filing an objection at all. Howard
v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir 1991); McCready v.
Kamminga, 113 Fed. App’x. 47, 49 (6th Cir. 2004). However, “[w]hen 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. The district court
is not required to review, and indeed “should adopt[,] the findings and rulings of the Magistrate
Judge to which no specific objection is filed.” Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of Shelby Cty. Sch., 47 F.
Supp. 3d 665, 674 (W.D. Tenn. 2014) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)).
In the absence of any party objections and having satisfied itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation and DISMISSES the Individual Defendants from this matter. The Court
CERTIFIES that Plaintiff may not appeal the determination herein in forma pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of June, 2023.
s/John T. Fowlkes, Jr.
JOHN T. FOWLKES, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE