United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
H. MAYS, JR.UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is the Magistrate Judge's February 15, 2019
Report and Recommendation (the “Report”). (ECF
No. 21.) The Report recommends granting Defendant Federal
Express Corporation's (“FedEx's”)
November 9, 2018 Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 18.)
Plaintiff Tino Smith, Sr. filed an objection to the Report on
March 4, 2019. (ECF No. 24.) FedEx responded to Smith's
objection on March 18, 2019. (ECF No. 26.)
following reasons, Smith's objection is OVERRULED. The
Report is ADOPTED. FedEx's Motion for Summary Judgment is
does not object to the Magistrate Judge's findings of
fact. Those findings are adopted. See Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S.140, 150 (1985). The following is a summary of the
findings relevant to this Order.
started working at FedEx's Indianapolis, Indiana hub as a
part-time handler in September 2009. (ECF No. 21 at 182.) On
March 23, 2016, Smith filed a Complaint of Discrimination
against FedEx with the Indiana Civil Rights Commission.
(Id. at 183.) He alleged that FedEx discriminated
and retaliated against him by failing to hire him for various
management positions in Indianapolis. (Id.) Smith
later secured the position of Senior Manager and transferred
to FedEx's Memphis, Tennessee hub. (Id.)
fired Smith on November 30, 2016 for violating FedEx's
Anti-Harassment Policy and its Acceptable Conduct Policy.
(Id. at 185.) Smith left offensive material on
several managers' golf carts. (Id. at 184.)
filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC in Memphis on
December 27, 2016. (Id. at 187.) The EEOC issued
Smith a right to sue letter on October 4, 2017. (ECF No. 1-1
at 12.) Smith sued FedEx in the Circuit Court of Shelby
County, Tennessee on December 19, 2017. (ECF No. 21 at 180.)
Smith alleged FedEx retaliated against him in violation of
Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., and
the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008
(“GINA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000ff et
seq. (Id.) FedEx received Smith's Complaint
on January 4, 2017. (ECF No. 1-1 at 27.) FedEx removed the
case on February 2, 2018. (ECF No. 21 at 180.)
Court has federal question jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331, district courts have original jurisdiction
“of all civil actions arising under the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States.” Smith asserts
a right to relief against FedEx under Title VII and GINA.
Those claims arise under the laws of the United States.
Standard of Review
Report and Recommendation
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).
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. See Arn, ...