Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Moses v. Smith

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

April 21, 2017

PAMELA MOSES, Plaintiff,
v.
JULIUS MAURICE SMITH; MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT; SGT. BARBER, in his official capacity; YOLANDA KIGHT, in her official capacity; AMY WEIRICH, in her personal and official capacity; L. HENDERSON, in his personal and official capacity; and SHERIFF BILL OLDHAM, in his personal and official capacity, Defendants.

          ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ORDER OF SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL

          S. THOMAS ANDERSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is the Chief United States Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation for the sua sponte dismissal of Plaintiff Pamela Moses' Pro Se Complaint (ECF No. 1) submitted October 25, 2016. Plaintiff filed timely objections (ECF No. 9) on November 8, 2016. For the reasons set forth below, the Chief Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation for sua sponte dismissal is ADOPTED. Plaintiff's Pro Se Complaint is DISMISSED.

         BACKGROUND

         On August 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Pro Se Complaint alleging the following claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII, and Tennessee law: malicious prosecution, harassment, discrimination, abuse of process, false arrest, false imprisonment, conspiracy to abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). Pursuant to Administrative Order 2013-05, the case was assigned to the Chief Magistrate Judge for management of all pretrial matters, including the determination of non-dispositive matters and the issuance of reports and recommendations on all dispositive matters. In cases where a plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required to screen the complaint and dismiss the action if the complaint “is frivolous or malicious, ” “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, ” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Chief Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 6) constitutes the Court's screening.

         The Chief Magistrate Judge entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and submitted a recommendation that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's Pro Se Complaint sua sponte for failure to state a claim. The Chief Magistrate Judge found that the Pro Se Complaint failed to state a clam against any of the Defendants named therein and recommended dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678- 79 (2009); Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). The Chief Magistrate Judge further recommended that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Plaintiff's timely objections followed.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), a district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). After reviewing the evidence, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made” by the Chief United States Magistrate Judge. Id. However, the Court need not review any portion of the recommendation to which Plaintiff did not specifically object. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985). The Court may adopt the findings and rulings of the Chief Magistrate Judge to which no specific objection is filed. Id.

         ANALYSIS

         I. Plaintiff's General Objections to the Report and Recommendation

         The Court holds that Plaintiff has failed to raise any specific objection to the findings of fact or conclusions of law set out in the Chief United States Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Taken as a whole, Plaintiff's filing amounts to a general objection to the Magistrate Judge's recommended disposition. The Sixth Circuit has opined that objections to a Magistrate Judge's order or recommendation must be specific “in order to focus the busy district court's attention on only those issues that were dispositive and contentious” and thereby to serve judicial efficiency. Howard v. Sec'y Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991).

A general objection to the entirety of the magistrate's report has the same effects as would a failure to object. The district court's attention is not focused on any specific issues for review, thereby making the initial reference to the magistrate useless. The functions of the district court are effectively duplicated as both the magistrate and the district court perform identical tasks. This duplication of time and effort wastes judicial resources rather than saving them, and runs contrary to the purposes of the Magistrates Act. We would hardly countenance an appellant's brief simply objecting to the district court's determination without explaining the source of the error. We should not permit appellants to do the same to the district court reviewing the magistrate's report.

Id. (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 148).

         The Court holds that Plaintiff has not presented any specific objections to the Chief Magistrate Judge's legal conclusion that Plaintiff's Pro Se Complaint has failed to state a claim over which this Court has original jurisdiction and that the Court should decline to accept supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims. Plaintiff has waived any objection to the Chief Magistrate Judge's substantive conclusions. Therefore, the Court hereby adopts the Chief Magistrate Judge's recommendation.

         II. Allegations ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.