United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR., CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. No. 39)
recommending that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
No. 33) and Request for Dismissal (Doc. No. 36) be denied.
The Defendants have filed a “Reply to Report and
Recommendation” (Doc. No. 40), which this Court
construes as Defendants' objections to the R&R. For
the reasons stated below, the Defendants' objections to
the R&R will be overruled, and the Magistrate Judge's
R&R will be approved and adopted.
Factual and Procedural Background
April 25, 2017, Venikov brought several claims against the
Defendants, including intentional misrepresentation,
negligent misrepresentation, violation of Tennessee's
Consumer Protection Act, and breach of contract, arising out
of his purchase of a restored 1968 Mustang from the
Defendants. (See Doc. No. 1.) Essentially, as
alleged in the Complaint, Venikov sought to purchase a
replica of “Eleanor, ” a 1968 Mustang featured in
the movie “Gone in 60 Seconds, ” contracted with
the Defendants to purchase such a replica, but received a
defective automobile that was unfit to drive. (Id.)
In response to the Complaint, the Defendants filed their
initial Motion to Dismiss in September 2018 (Doc. No. 23),
which the Court ultimately denied (Doc. No. 29).
Subsequently, the Defendants refiled the pending Motion to
Dismiss and Request for Dismissal shortly thereafter.
described in the R&R, the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss alleges that the Complaint was filed in the wrong
court because the conduct alleged occurred in Clay County,
Tennessee, and thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear
the matter. (Doc. No. 39 at 1.) Defendants'
“Request for Dismissal” argues that Venikov is
committing “fraudulent charges” against the
Defendants and asks that the replica at issue be brought to
the Court so that the work Defendants performed can be
observed by the Court. (Id.) Defendants' motions
are devoid of any legal argument or citations and are not
accompanied by separate supporting memorandums of law as
required by Local Rule 7.01(a)(2). (See Doc. Nos.
R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends denying the motions
because: (1) this Court has subject matter jurisdiction based
upon the federal diversity of citizenship statute at 28
U.S.C. § 1332 because the amount in controversy exceeds
$75, 000 and the parties are citizens of different states;
(2) Defendants are residents of the state of Tennessee and
the alleged conduct occurred in Tennessee, providing personal
jurisdiction over the Defendants; (3) Clay County Tennessee
is in the Middle District of Tennessee and therefore venue is
appropriate; and (4) Defendants' other arguments are not
properly based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. (Doc.
No. 39 at 9-10.)
filed their reply in opposition to the R&R, which the
Court construes as their objections. As with their pending
motions, the Defendants do not cite to any legal authority in
their objections. At bottom, Defendants' objections
merely reiterate their motion arguments and request that the
Court enter an order dismissing the case. (See Doc.
No. 41.) The Defendants summarily challenge nearly every
decision the Court has made up to this point in their case.
(See id.) As explained below, this is insufficient
to refute the Magistrate Judge's conclusions.
Standard of Review
Court's standard of review for a magistrate judge's
R&R depends upon whether a party files objections. If a
party objects to portions of the Report and Recommendation,
the Court reviews those portions de novo. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) (C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). De novo
review in these circumstances requires at least a review of
the evidence before the magistrate judge; the Court may not
act solely on the basis of a magistrate judge's R&R.
See Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th
Cir. 1981); see also 12 Wright, Miller & Marcus,
Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 3070.2
(1997). After reviewing the evidence, the Court “may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations” of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C.
the Court notes that Defendants have not mounted proper
objections to the R&R. In this circuit, litigants must
file specific and timely objections to a magistrate
judge's report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C) in order to preserve the right to appeal a
subsequent order of the district court adopting that report.
Cole v. Yukins, 7 Fed.Appx. 354, 356 (6th Cir. 2001)
(citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985)).
The filing of vague, general, or conclusory objections does
not meet the requirement of specific objections and is
tantamount to a complete failure to object. Id.
(citing Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir.
1995)). The Defendants' objections are conclusory, as
they lack any citation to the record or legal authority, and,
therefore, fail to challenge the Magistrate Judge's
R&R findings. See id.
with regard to the Defendants' motions, they have not
provided the Court with any legal citation or cogent argument
supporting their requested relief. (See Doc. Nos.
33, 36.) For this reason alone, the motions must be denied.
See Brown v. VHS of Mich., Inc., 545 Fed. App'x
368, 372 (6th Cir. 2013) (holding that a plaintiff is deemed
to have abandoned a claim when a plaintiff fails to make
argument in support); Golden v. Metro. Gov't of
Nashville & Davidson Cty., 263 F.Supp.3d 684, 690
(M.D. Tenn. 2017) (following Brown and finding
plaintiffs claim abandoned where no arguments were raised).
Additionally, the motions are not accompanied by supporting
memoranda, and, therefore, must be denied for failure to
comply with this Court's Local Rules. See LR
7.01(a)(2) (“[E]very motion that may require the
resolution of an issue of law must be accompanied by a
separately filed memorandum of law citing supporting
authorities and, where allegations of fact are relied upon,
affidavits, depositions, or other exhibits in support
basis of the foregoing and having fully considered the
arguments raised by the Defendants, the Defendants'
objections are OVERRULED, and the R&R is
APPROVED AND ADOPTED. The Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss ...