United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING SHELBY COUNTY SCHOOLS' MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
T. FOWLKES, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is the Defendant Shelby County Schools'
(“SCS”) Motion for Summary Judgment that was
filed on April 28, 2017. (ECF No. 27). Plaintiff did not file a
response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment.
The matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On July 5, 2017,
the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation that
the Court grant the Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment. (ECF No. 31). Plaintiff has not filed any
objections to the Magistrate Judge's report and
recommendation. Upon a de novo review, the Court
finds the report and recommendation should be adopted in
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 (6th
Cir. 2003) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). A district court judge
must review dispositive motions under the de novo
standard. See Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 275
(1976); Baker, 67 Fed. App'x. at 311 and 28
U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B). After review, the district court
is free to accept, reject or modify the magistrate
judge's proposed findings or recommendations. See
Thomas, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).
party who disagrees with a Magistrate Judge's
recommendation may file written objections. Id., 474
U.S. at 142; Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C) and Tenn. West. LR 72.1(g)(2). A failure to file
specific objections to a magistrate judge's report does
not meet the requirement of filing an objection at all.
Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human Services,
932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir 1991); McCready v.
Kamminga, 113 Fed. App'x. 47, 49 (6th Cir. 2004). A
district judge should adopt the findings and rulings of the
magistrate judge to which no specific objection is filed.
Brown v. Board of Educ. of Shelby County Schools, 47
F.Supp.3d 665, 674 (W.D. Tenn. 2014).
has not filed any timely objections to the Magistrate
Judge's proposed findings of fact. Therefore, the Court
adopts the Magistrate Judge's factual summary of this
Magistrate Judge first determined that Plaintiff has
satisfied the four prongs of a prima facie case of
retaliation under Title VII: 1) Bell acted in a manner
protected by Title VII; 2) SCBE knew of this exercise of
protected activity; 3) SCBE subsequently took a materially
adverse action against Bell; and 4) the adverse action had a
causal connection to the protected activity. Burlington
N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68
(2006); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.
792 (1973). The Magistrate Judge determined that in filing
the Title VII charge, Plaintiff satisfied the first prong.
She also concluded that Shelby County Board of Education
(“SCBOE”) was aware of the charge and
subsequently took adverse action against Plaintiff, in
satisfaction of prongs two and three. Finally, because
Plaintiff was terminated only three days after filing her
harassment complaint, the Magistrate Judge concluded that
Plaintiff demonstrated that the adverse action was causally
connected to her exercise of protected activity.
Howlington v. Quality Restaurant Concepts, LLC, 298
Fed. App'x 436, 447 (6th Cir. 2008); Nguyen v. City
of Cleveland, 229 F.3d 559, 563 (6th Cir. 2000).
Bell sufficiently pled a prima facie case of
retaliation, the Magistrate Judge determined that SCBE
adequately articulated a legitimate and nondiscriminatory
reason for terminating Bell's employment. Texas
Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248,
253 (1981)(the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee's
rejection). The Magistrate Judge concluded that SCBE
adequately demonstrated that Plaintiff's repeated
violations of DRs 07, 10, 13 & 22, providing legitimate
and nondiscriminatory reasons for her termination in
accordance with DR 02.
the Magistrate Judge noted that Bell has not demonstrated by
a preponderance of the evidence that any of the legitimate
reasons offered above were a pretext for discrimination or
retaliation. Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co.,
29 F.3d 1078, 1084 (6th Cir. 1994), overruled on other
grounds, Geiger v. Tower Auto., 579 F.3d 614 (6th
Cir. 2009)(citation omitted). The Court agrees. Plaintiff did
not file a response to SCBE's motion for summary judgment
or statement of undisputed material facts. Further, Plaintiff
did not file any objections to the Magistrate Judge's
report and recommendation pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2).
After reviewing SCBE's motion for summary judgment, the
Court finds the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that
SCBE has offered legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for
terminating Plaintiff's employment.
de novo review and without objections by Plaintiff,
the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's report and
recommendation should be adopted in full and the
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 27,
Granted. Accordingly, the case is ordered Dismissed.