United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, dated November 3, 2017 (the
“Report”). (ECF No. 16-1.) The Report recommends
that the Court grant Defendants Pridestaff and Jeremy
Thacker's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8; see also ECF No.
8-1). The Report also recommends that Defendants' Motion
for Judicial Notice be denied as moot. (ECF No. 9.)
following reasons, the Report is ADOPTED. Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and their Motion for Judicial
Notice is DENIED AS MOOT.
19, 2017, Plaintiffs Conexx Staffing Services
(“Con-exx”) and Jeremy Thacker filed a pro
se “Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights Under
42 U.S.C., § 1983.” (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint
alleges the following:
In June of 2011, Jeremy Thacker/PrideStaff submitted a
proposal to MLGW for clerical services and general laborers,
a 5 year contract to start January 2012 to December 31, 2016.
The condition of an award was that the [submitter] had to
agree to utilize the services of a WBE/MBE. After meeting
with Thacker and agreeing to give 25% of the contract and
giving him all certification needed[, ] he gave all
information to MLGW. The contract was awarded to PrideStaff
but Conexx never received any money or funds from this
contract that was in effect for 5 years with Conexx
(Id. at 2.) Plaintiffs seek “25% of the
contract plus damages” as relief. (Id. at 3.)
12, 2017, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No.
8; see also ECF No. 8-1.) Also on June 12, 2017, Defendants
filed their Motion for Judicial Notice. (ECF No. 9.)
November 3, 2017, the Magistrate Judge entered the Report.
(ECF No. 16-1.) The Report recommends that Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss be granted because the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction. (Id. at 343-44.) The Report
reasons that “Plaintiffs . . . do not allege a Section
1983 claim on the face of [the] Complaint, ” and
“Plaintiffs have not alleged diversity of
citizenship.” Id. The Report also recommends
that Defendants' Motion for Judicial Notice be denied as
moot. (Id. at 344.)
filed a timely objection to the Report on November 13, 2017.
(ECF No. 17.) Defendants responded on November 27, 2017. (ECF
Jurisdiction & Standard of Review
enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve the burden on the
federal judiciary by permitting the assignment of
district-court duties to magistrate judges. See United
States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 2001)
(citing Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 869-70
(1989)); see also Baker v. Peterson, 67 F. App'x
308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003). A district court has the authority
to “designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings,
including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of
the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for
the disposition, by a judge of the court, of any
motion.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
district court has appellate jurisdiction over any decisions
the magistrate judge issues pursuant to a referral. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. “A district judge must
determine de novo any part of a Magistrate
Judge's disposition that has been properly objected
to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The district court is not required to review -- under a
de novo or any other standard -- “any issue
that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). The district court should
adopt the findings and rulings of the Magistrate Judge to
which no specific objection is filed. Id.;
United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 950 (6th
to any part of a Magistrate Judge's Report “must be
clear enough to enable the district court to discern those
issues that are dispositive and contentious.”
Miller v. Currie,50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995);
see also Arn, 474 U.S. at 147 (stating that the
purpose of the rule is to “focus attention on those
issues . . . that are at the heart of the parties'
dispute.”). “‘[O]bjections disput[ing] the
correctness of the magistrate's recommendation but
fail[ing] to specify the findings . . . believed [to be] in
error' are too general.” Spencer v.
Bouchard,449 F.3d 721, 725 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting
Miller, 50 F.3d at 380). A general, frivolous, or conclusory
objection will be treated as if no objection had been made.
Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932
F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991); see also Mir ...