United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
ORDER ADOPTING CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL
T. Fowlkes, Jr. United States District Judge
the Court is Plaintiff Emerson Owens's pro se
Complaint alleging violations of his civil rights under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, filed on August 16, 2017. (ECF No. 1.)
The Complaint was accompanied by his Motion seeking leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 3.) Pursuant to
Administrative Order 2013-15, this case was assigned to the
Chief Magistrate Judge for management of all pretrial
matters. On September 15, 2017, the Chief Magistrate Judge
issued a Report and Recommendation suggesting sua
sponte dismissal of Plaintiff's claims for failure
to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii) on which relief may be granted.
(ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff did not file any Objections to the
Report and Recommendation.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Report and Recommendation, the Chief Magistrate Judge
provides, and this Court adopts and incorporates, proposed
findings of fact in this case. (ECF No. 7, 2-4.)
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.”
United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir.
2001). Pursuant to the provision, magistrate judges may hear
and determine any pretrial matter pending before the Court,
except various dispositive motions. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A). Upon hearing a pending matter, “[T]he
magistrate judge must enter a recommended disposition,
including, if appropriate, proposed findings of fact.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(1); see also Baker v. Peterson,
67 F. App'x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003). Any party who
disagrees with a magistrate's proposed findings and
recommendation may file written objections to the report and
recommendation. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2).
standard of review that is applied by the district court
depends on the nature of the matter considered by the
magistrate judge. See Baker v. Peterson, 67 F.
App'x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted)
(“A district court normally applies a ‘clearly
erroneous or contrary to law' standard of review for
nondispositive preliminary measures. A district court must
review dispositive motions under the de novo
standard.”). Upon review of the evidence, the district
court may accept, reject, or modify the proposed findings or
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. Brown v. Board
of Educ, 47 F.Supp.3d 665, 674 (W.D. Tenn. 2014);
see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court
“may also receive further evidence or recommit the
matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions.”
Moses v. Gardner, No. 2:14-cv-2706-SHL-dkv, 2015
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29701, at *3 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 11, 2015). A
district judge should adopt the findings and rulings of the
magistrate judge to which no specific objection is filed.
Brown, 47 F.Supp.3d at 674.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) Screening
to Local Rule 4.1, service will not issue in a pro
se case where the pro se plaintiff has been
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis until the
complaint has been screened under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). LR 4.1(b). Specifically, courts are required
to screen in forma pauperis complaints and dismiss
any complaint, or portion thereof, if the allegation of
poverty is untrue or if the action (i) is frivolous or
malicious, (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Standard of Review for Failure to State a Claim
assessing whether Plaintiffs Complaint states a claim upon
which relief may be granted, the standards under Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as stated
in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009),
and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555-57 (2007), are applied. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d
468, 470 (6th Cir. 2010). “Accepting all well-pleaded
allegations in the complaint as true, the Court
‘considers] the factual allegations in [the] complaint
to determine if they plausibly suggest an entitlement to
relief” Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383
(6th Cir. 2011) (alteration in original) (quoting
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681). Pleadings that are no more
than conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. “While legal
conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they
must be supported by factual allegations.” Id; see
also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 n.3. Additionally,
although not free from basic pleading requirements, pro
se pleadings are “held ‘to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, ' and
should therefore be liberally construed.”
Curtin, 631 F.3d at 383 (quoting Martin v.
Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir. 2004)). Pro
se litigants, however, are not exempt from the
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989);
see also Payne v. Sec'y of Treas., 73 F.
App'x 836, 837 (6th Cir. 2003) (affirming sua
sponte dismissal of complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2) and stating, “[n]either this court nor the
district court is required to create [a person]'s claim
preliminary matter, the Chief Magistrate Judge found, and
this Court agrees, that the information provided in the
affidavit in support of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis satisfies Plaintiff's
burden of showing that she is unable to pay the civil filing
fee. Accordingly, the analysis contained herein constitutes
the Court's screening under 28 U.S.C. §
Chief Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff's §
1983 claim be dismissed sua sponte for failure to
state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(ii) on which relief may be granted. (ECF No
7, 11.) Specifically, the Chief Magistrate Judge found that
Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege that Defendant's
actions resulted in a deprivation of his rights, ...