United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
T. FOWLKES, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court are Delta Airlines' (“Defendant”)
Motion to Dismiss and Karen Christian's
(“Plaintiff”) Motion to Amend Complaint and for
Stay of Ruling on Motion to Dismiss. (ECF Nos. 10 & 19).
Defendant filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion to
Amend on January 24, 2017. (ECF No. 21). These motions were
referred to Magistrate Judge Charmiane G. Claxton for
determination and/or report and recommendation as appropriate
on February 15, 2017. (ECF No. 22). Magistrate Judge Claxton
issued her Report and Recommendation on June 9, 2017. (ECF
No. 24). To date, no objections have been filed.
de novo review, the Court hereby ADOPTS the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
for District Court's Review of a Report and
district court has the authority to refer certain pre-trial
matters to a magistrate judge for resolution. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b); Callier v. Gray, 167 F.3d 977, 980
(6th Cir. 1999). These referrals may include non-dispositive
pretrial matters, such as a motion to compel or a motion for
a protective order concerning discovery. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A). The district court has appellate jurisdiction
over any decisions the magistrate judge issues pursuant to
such a referral. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. The referrals may also
include dispositive matters such as a motion for summary
judgment or a motion for injunctive relief. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B). When a dispositive matter is referred, the
magistrate judge's duty is to issue proposed findings of
fact and recommendations for disposition, which the district
court may adopt or not. “The district judge may accept,
reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive
further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate
judge with instructions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).
standard of review that is applied by the district court
depends on the nature of the matter considered by the
magistrate judge. If the magistrate judge issues a
non-dispositive pretrial order, the district court should
defer to that order unless it is “found to be clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). However, if the magistrate
judge's order was issued in response to a dispositive
motion, the district court should engage in de novo
review of all portions of the order to which specific written
objections have been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); Baker v. Peterson, 67 Fed.
App'x. 308, 310, 2003 WL 21321184, *2 (6th Cir. 2003)
(“A district court normally applies a ‘clearly
erroneous or contrary to law' standard of review for
non[-]dispositive preliminary measures. A district court must
review dispositive motions under the de novo
January 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend
Complaint. (ECF No. 19). Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2),
“[T]he court should freely give leave when justice so
requires.” However, the right to amend is not absolute,
and a court can deny leave based on a finding of “undue
delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, or futility.”
Crestwood Farm Bloodstock v. Everest Stables, Inc.,
751 F.3d 434, 444 (6th Cir. 2014); Tucker v.
Middleburg-Legacy Place, LLC, 539 F.3d 545, 551 (6th
Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff's Motion to
Amend be denied because Plaintiff failed to attach a proposed
Amended Complaint to appraise the Court and Defendant of what
amendments Plaintiff planned to make. The Magistrate Judge
reasoned that “[t]here is no way for the Court to
assess with this limited information whether ‘justice
so requires' amendment of the Complaint.” (ECF No.
24 at 2). This Court agrees. For the reasons cited by the
Magistrate Judge, and because the record clearly shows
“undue delay”, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend
Complaint is DENIED.
September 14, 2016, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF
No. 10). Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to
File Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on
November 11, 2016. (ECF No. 17). The Magistrate Judge entered
an Order granting Plaintiff's motion on May 23, 2017.
(ECF No. 23). To date, Plaintiff has not filed a Response to
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Magistrate Judge
recommends that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be granted
on the grounds of 1) insufficient service of process, 2) lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction, or 3) failure to state a
claim for which relief may be granted.