United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
FREDERICK R. CARR, Plaintiff,
JOHN A. BEAM, Attorney at Law, EQUITUS LAW ALLIANCE, PLLC, Defendants.
District Judge, Nixon
Magistrate Judge, Newbern
H. SHARP, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
before the Court is Plaintiff Frederick R. Carr's
(“Plaintiff”) Request for a Reconsideration of
the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc.
No. 24) (“Motion”). (Doc. No. 31.) Upon review of
this matter, the Court finds the Report and Recommendation to
be well-founded and ADOPTS it in its entirety. Accordingly,
the Court hereby GRANTS the Defendants John A. Beam and
Equitus Law Alliance, PLLC's (collectively,
“Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 9) and
DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint (Doc.
No. 17). The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close the
August 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed this breach of contract
claim asserting that he hired Defendants to represent him in
negotiations that eventually caused him to accept a
promissory note made by Wise Industries (“Wise”)
and in unsuccessful 2007 litigation against Wise to enforce
same. (Doc. No. 1, p. 3.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleged
that, while the lawsuit was pending, Beam informed him that
he wished to associate with another attorney, Irene Haude
(“Haude”), to handle Plaintiff's case.
(Id. at ¶ 5.) Plaintiff alleges that Beam
failed to attend a court hearing held in August 2009 and,
instead, delegated the matter to Haude, who “had no
plan to discuss any relevant facts in the case” and
failed to adequately represent him. (Id. at ¶
8.) In or around 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint against
Beam with the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility
regarding same. (Id. at ¶ 9.) In his reply to
that complaint, Beam stated that the reason he referred
Plaintiff to Haude was because a few weeks before the court
hearing, he discovered a potential conflict of interest
involving Wise. (Id. at ¶ 10.)
filed a Motion to Dismiss claiming that Plaintiff's
action is barred by the one-year statute of limitations in
Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-104(a)(2). (Doc. No. 9.) Plaintiff
filed a Response in Opposition, asserting that the statute of
limitations violates his rights under the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it places an
unreasonable time limit and unreasonable conditions for
filing a professional malpractice lawsuit upon non-resident.
(Doc. No. 18.) Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Amend his
Complaint to include an allegation that Defendants not only
breached their professional contract with him but also
breached the Nashville Bar Association's
“Lawyer's Creed of Professionalism.” (Doc.
No. 17-1, pp. 4-6.) Defendants filed a Response in Opposition
to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Doc. No. 20) claiming
that it was futile, to which Plaintiff filed a Reply (Doc.
Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Bryant for, among
other things, a recommendation of the disposition of any
pre-trial motions. (Doc. No. 4.) Accordingly, on August 15,
2016, Magistrate Judge Bryant issued a Report and
Recommendation (the “Report”) recommending that
this Court grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No.
9) and deny Plaintiff's Motion to Amend his Complaint
(Doc. No. 17) and provided fourteen days in which either
party could file an objection. (Doc. No. 24.) Plaintiff filed
an Objection on August 23, 2016 (Doc. No. 31), to which
Defendants responded (Doc. No. 32) and Plaintiff replied
(Doc. No. 33).
Standard of Review
standard for a district court's review of a magistrate
judge's report and recommendation is contingent upon
whether a party files an objection. El-Amin v.
Clarksville Police Dept., No. 3:12-cv-342, 2013 WL
1130876, at *3 (M. D. Tenn. Mar. 18, 2013). “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
(advisory committee notes). Plaintiff's Objection did not
address the Report's denial of his Motion to Amend.
Accordingly, the Court merely reviews that portion of the
Report for “clear error” and adopts it in its
party has timely filed objections, the district court must
conduct a de novo review of the objected-to portions
of the Magistrate's Report. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b);
El-Amin, 2013 WL 1130876, at *3 (citing Rule 72(b)).
The Rule states, in relevant part:
The district judge must determine de novo any part
of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been
properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject,
or modify the recommended disposition; receive further
evidence; or ...