United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION FOR PARTIAL SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL
T. FOWLKES, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
October 6, 2016, Plaintiff Caroline Thomas, proceeding
pro se, filed a complaint against numerous (23)
defendants alleging violations of her civil rights
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a motion to proceed
in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1 & 3). On October
7, 2016, the matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B) and L.R.
4.1(b)(2). On December 5, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a Motion
to Amend and Supplement Complaint and for Joinder of
Additional Defendants. (ECF No. 8). On December 19, 2016, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation that the
Court dismiss sua sponte all of Thomas' state
and federal claims other than her 42 U.S.C. § 1983
claims against Defendants Fayette County and Sheriff Bobby
Riles for deliberate indifference to her medical needs under
the Fourteenth Amendment. The Magistrate Judge also denied
Plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint to join any
additional defendants. (ECF No. 12). On January 18, 2017, the
undersigned Court granted Plaintiff's motion for
additional time to file objections which were submitted on
January 31, 2017. (ECF Nos. 16 and 18).
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.” See
e.g. Baker v. Peterson, 67 Fed. App'x. 308, 311,
2003 WL 21321184 (6th Cir. 2003) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). A
United States District Judge may refer certain dispositive
pretrial motions to a United States Magistrate Judge for
submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
law, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C);
Brown v. Wesley Quaker Maid, Inc., 771 F.2d 952, 957
(6th Cir. 1985). While most actions by a Magistrate Judge are
reviewed for clear error, dispositive recommendations to the
District Court Judge are reviewed de novo.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 141-42 (1985). In
applying the de novo standard, Congress afforded the
district judge sound discretion to rely on the Magistrate
Judge's proposed findings and determinations. U.S. v.
Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980).
District Court Judge shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made. Therefore, the District Judge may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the Magistrate Judge. The judge may also receive
further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate
Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. §636 (b)(1)(B)
and (C); Fed. Rule Civ. P. 72(b); Baker v. Peterson,
67 Fed. App'x. 308, 311 (6th Cir. 2003). The Court need
not conduct a de novo hearing, but must make a
de novo determination based on the record only to
matters involving disputed facts and findings. Mira,
806 F.2d at 637. Also, de novo review is not
required when the objections to the report and recommendation
are frivolous, conclusive or general. Mira v.
Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986).
Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation offers an
extensive overview of the case as proposed findings of fact.
Plaintiff submitted objections which do not challenge any of
the proposed findings of fact. (ECF No. 12, pp. 3-9 and ECF
No. 18). As such, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's
proposed findings of fact as the factual summary of this
Request to Amend the Complaint
includes in her response to the Magistrate Judge's report
and recommendation, a second Motion for Leave to Amend and
Supplement her complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2),
15(d), and 20(a)(2) and a proposed Amended Complaint. (ECF
No. 18, pp. 10-52). She requests leave to amend to add a
Fifth Amendment equal protection claim against “DOE and
DOE officials [in their individual and official capacities]
for failing to treat Plaintiff fairly and equally” and
to join Bev Holloway as a party Defendant. (ECF No. 18, pp.
prior motion to amend requested leave to add Bev Holloway as
a Defendant. The Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff's
request to add any additional defendants, including Bev
Holloway, who entered her property and removed 78 trees on
October 17, 2016, as improper joinder under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15.
Plaintiff's request to include a Fifth Amendment claim
has also been considered by the Magistrate Judge who
recommended in her report and recommendation that it be
dismissed as lacking merit. (ECF No. 12, pp. 22 and 39).
now contends that additional and newly discovered facts
support adding a Fifth Amendment claim against DOE, DOE
officials and the joinder of Bev Holloway as a party
Defendants. Plaintiff again asserts that the additional facts
relate to property that was removed from her land, support
her current claims and justify adding more Defendants to her
complaint. (ECF No. 18, pp. 3-5). Plaintiff's latest
motion to amend her complaint is again Denied.
would be futile to add Holloway or any other Defendant
associated with the October 17, 2016 incident. The case
currently before the Court involves the events that occurred
after Plaintiff's municipal hearing on October 7, 2016,
through October 9, 2016, the length of her subsequent
detention at the Fayette County Jail. The incidents regarding
the removal of trees on her property does not involve the
same facts and circumstances for which she has filed §
1983 claims against Fayette County and its employees for
deprivation of medical care in violation of the Fourteenth