United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
TRAVIS I. HOPPS, Plaintiff,
LOWE'S HOME CENTER, LLC, Defendant.
H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, dated July 14, 2017 (the
“Report”). (ECF No. 7.) The Report recommends
that the Court sua sponte dismiss Plaintiff Travis
Hopps's claims against Defendant Lowe's Home Center,
LLC. (Id. at 29.) Plaintiff has not objected to the
following reasons, the Report is ADOPTED. The action is
7, 2017, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint for
Violation of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF
No. 1.) The Complaint alleges:
My alleged incident started Jan 2015 to Dane Parker Assistant
store manager who [was] my supervisor for a year and 5 months
before Mike Halley (ASM) took over three months of my
discharge. I reported numerous allegation from discrimination
and retaliation to Dane Parker (ASM) about Mike Halley from
Jan 2015 to Sept 2015 but I was unable to stop name calling
like “BOY” come here or singling me out because
I'm BLACK. Lowe's did a poor job of protecting my
right under law 501-1-801, 47-18-802 and 50-7-303 from
discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful discharge for
misconduct of these codes.
(Id. at 7.) Plaintiff requests $650, 000 in
compensatory damages. (Id. at 6.)
7, 2017, Plaintiff also applied to proceed in forma
pauperis. (ECF No. 2.)
14, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Charmiane G. Claxton
entered the Report. (ECF No. 7.) The Report recommends that
the complaint be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii) because “Plaintiff's
complaint does not contain the minimum requirement of a short
and plain statement indicating his entitlement to
relief.” (Id. at 29.) The Report recommends
that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma
pauperis be granted. (Id. at 26.) The Report
also recommends “that the Court CERTIFY, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal in this matter by
Plaintiff would not be taken in good faith and Plaintiff may
not proceed on appeal in forma pau-peris.”
(Id. at 30.)
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 Fed.Appx.
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
has not objected to the Report, and the deadline to do so
under Local Rule 72.1 has passed. See also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). Adoption of the Report's
recommendations is warranted. See Arn, 474 U.S. at