Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hopps v. Lowe's Home Center, LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

April 13, 2018

TRAVIS I. HOPPS, Plaintiff,
v.
LOWE'S HOME CENTER, LLC, Defendant.

          ORDER

          SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before 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.)[1] Plaintiff has not objected to the Report.

         For the following reasons, the Report is ADOPTED. The action is DISMISSED.

         I. Background

         On July 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.)

         On July 7, 2017, Plaintiff also applied to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.)

         On July 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.)

         II. Analysis

         Congress 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).

         The 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 Cir. 1981.)

         Plaintiff 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 150-51.

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.