United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION ORDER OF SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL
THOMAS ANDERSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Plaintiff's General Objections to the Report and
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).
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