United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
TENIKA L. FONDREN, Plaintiff,
AMERICAN HOME SHIELD CORPORATION, Defendant.
H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (the “Report”), dated March 15,
2018. (ECF No. 31.) The Report recommends denying Defendant
American Home Shield Corporation's (“AHS”)
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Tenika L. Fondren's Complaint
or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement (ECF
No. 28). (Id.) AHS has not objected, and the
deadline to do so has passed.
21, 2017, Fondren filed a pro se complaint against
AHS, alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§
2000e et seq. (“Title VII”). (ECF No.
1.) Fondren served AHS on August 11, 2017, using a certified
process server. (See ECF No. 10.) The Affidavit of
Service signed by the process server states that a copy of
the summons and the complaint were served on Carissa Zahed,
who “is designated by law to accept service on behalf
of American Home Shield Corporation.” (Id. at
September 29, 2017, Fondren filed a motion for entry of
default for AHS's “failure to file a claim or
answer or otherwise defend with the court in this case as
required by law.” (ECF No. 14.) The Clerk entered
default against AHS on October 2, 2017. (ECF No. 15.)
October 9, 2017, AHS filed a Response to Plaintiff's
Motion for Default Judgment and Objection to Clerk's
Entry of Default, claiming that “AHS was never served
with a copy of Plaintiff's Complaint” because
Carissa Zahed is a representative at AHS's call center
and not an individual authorized to receive service of
process. (ECF No. 16.)
October 25, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Diane K.
Vescovo construed AHS's response and objection as a
motion to set aside entry of default and granted the motion.
(ECF No. 21.) She also instructed Fondren “to re-serve
AHS or to request a waiver within thirty days. . . .”
October 30, 2017, Fondren filed an appeal of the Magistrate
Judge's order, arguing that the order misstated the date
on which Fondren responded to AHS's offer to waive
service of summons. (ECF No. 23.) The Court affirmed the
Magistrate Judge's order on November 22, 2017. (ECF No.
25.) The Court gave Fondren until December 22, 2017, to
comply with the Magistrate Judge's order. (Id.
at 114 n.1.)
served AHS on December 18, 2017, using a certified process
server. (ECF No. 27.) The Affidavit of Service signed by the
process server states that a copy of the summons and the
complaint were served on Kenya White, “HR - Operations
Specialist” at AHS, “who stated [she is]
authorized to accept service for American Home Shield
Corporation. . . .” (ECF No. 29-2.)
January 10, 2018, AHS filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the
Alternative, for a More Definite Statement. (ECF No. 28.) AHS
argues that Kenya White is not an individual authorized to
receive service of process. (Id. at 123.) AHS
alternatively asks that Fondren file a more definite
statement. (Id. at 129.) Fondren responded on
January 18, 2018. (ECF No. 29.)
March 15, 2018, the Magistrate Judge submitted the Report.
(ECF No. 31.) It recommends denying AHS's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff Tenika L. Fondren's Complaint or, in
the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement.
(Id.) AHS did not file an objection.
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). For dispositive matters,
“[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part
of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been
properly objected to.” See Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After reviewing the
evidence, the court is free to accept, reject, or modify the
magistrate judge's proposed findings or recommendations.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court is not
required to review -- under a de novo or any other standard
-- those aspects of the report and recommendation to which no
objection is made. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150
(1985). The district court should adopt the magistrate
judge's findings and rulings to which no specific
objection is filed. Id. at 151.
not objected to the Report. Adoption of the Report is
warranted. See Arn, 474 U.S. at 150-51.
foregoing reasons, the Report is ADOPTED, and AHS's
Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for ...