United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Columbia Division
HOLMES, MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Court
dismiss Plaintiff's case be dismissed pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), (Doc. No. 27), and
Plaintiff's Objections thereto. (Doc. No. 31-2). For the
reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's objections to the
R&R will be overruled, and the Magistrate Judge's
R&R will be approved and adopted.
filed this action on April 6, 2018 seeking judicial review of
the administrative denial of her application for social
security benefits. (Doc. No. 1). Defendant filed an answer
and the administrative record on August 28, 2018. (Doc. Nos.
13, 14). By Order entered on August 29, 2018, the Magistrate
Judge gave Plaintiff 28 days to file a motion for judgment on
the record and accompanying memorandum. (Doc. No. 15).
Plaintiff failed to do so, and on November 6, 2018, the
Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to file within 14 days a
motion for judgment on the record and accompanying memorandum
or otherwise show cause as to why the Complaint should not be
dismissed. (Doc. No. 17). Plaintiff was warned that failure
to do so would result in recommendation that her case be
dismissed. (Id.). In response, Plaintiff filed a
Motion to extend her deadline for filing a motion for
judgment on the record until December 19, 2018. (Doc. No.
19). The Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff's motion for
extension of time by Order entered on November 29, 2018,
extending Plaintiff's deadline for filing a motion for
judgment on the record to December 31, 2018. (Doc. No. 20).
Plaintiff and her counsel were advised there would be no
future accommodations for Plaintiff's counsel's
inattention to the Court's directives. (Id.)
However, Plaintiff did not file a motion for judgment on the
record within the time frame. On February 21, 2018, Plaintiff
filed a motion for a continuance of the dispositive motion
deadline to February 21, 2018, (Doc. No. 23), and a motion
for judgment on the record. (Doc. Nos. 24-25). The Magistrate
Judge denied Plaintiff's untimely motion for a
continuance and issued the R&R on March 6, 2018,
recommending dismissal of Plaintiff's action. (Doc. No.
27). The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that any
objections to the R&R were to state with particularity
the specific portions of the R&R to which objection is
STANDARD OF REVIEW
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.02, a district
court reviews de novo any portion of a report and
recommendation to which a specific objection is made.
United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir.
2001). General or conclusory objections are insufficient.
See Zimmerman v. Cason, 354 Fed.Appx. 228, 230 (6th
Cir. 2009). “The parties have the duty to pinpoint
those portions of the magistrate's report that the
district court must specially consider.” Mira v.
Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir.1986) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). An
“objection” that does nothing more than disagree
with a magistrate judge's determination, “without
explaining the source of the error, ” is not considered
a valid objection. Howard v. Sec'y of Health and
Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir.1991). Thus,
“only those specific objections to the magistrate's
report made to the district court will be preserved for
appellate review.” Zimmerman, 354 Fed.Appx. at
230 (quoting Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers,
829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987)). In conducting the
review, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
action may be dismissed if the plaintiff fails to prosecute
or comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a
court order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). As the Magistrate Judge
aptly noted, in determining whether dismissal under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) is appropriate, the Sixth
Circuit has directed courts to consider: (1) whether the
party's failure to cooperate is due to willfulness, bad
faith, or fault; (2) whether the adversary was prejudiced by
the dilatory conduct of the party; (3) whether the dismissed
party was warned that failure to cooperate could lead to
dismissal; and (4) whether less drastic sanctions were
imposed or considered before dismissal was ordered.
Stough v. Mayville Cmty. Sch., 138 F.3d 612, 615
(6th Cir. 1998) (citing Regional Refuse Sys., Inc. v.
Inland Reclamation Co., 842 F.2d 150, 153-55 (6th Cir.
1988)). The Magistrate Judge considered the above factors and
concluded dismissal of Plaintiff's case was warranted.
(Doc. No. 27 at 3-6). Plaintiff appears to raise two
objections to the R&R: (1) that the Magistrate
Judge's recommendation “is inconsistent with the
history of the case and with the Court's role in the
administration of justice”; and (2) that Plaintiff
“should not be punished for her counsel's
struggles.” (Doc. No. 31-2).
first objection fails to identify specific factual or legal
errors from the R&R. (Id. at 1-2). Rather
Plaintiff's first objection merely states a disagreement
with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion. (Id.).
Objections which do not identify an error are meritless.
See Howard v. Sec. of Health & Human Servs., 932
F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991); VanDiver v. Martin,
304 F.Supp.2d 934, 937 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (“An
‘objection' that does nothing more than state a
disagreement with a magistrate's suggested resolution, or
simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an
‘objection' as that term is used in this
context.”). Plaintiffs first objection will therefore
second objection also lacks specificity and fails to identify
the portions of the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to
which the objection is made. (See Doc. No. 31-2
(“Warner should not be punished for her counsel's
struggles.”)). The Magistrate Judge considered the
impact recommending dismissal would have on Plaintiff in
coming to her decision and provided a detailed explanation
for her determination. (Doc. No. 27 at 2, 4-5). Plaintiffs
second objection fails to direct the Court to a specific
factual or legal error she alleges the Magistrate Judge
committed in making her determination and appears to merely
state a disagreement with the Magistrate Judge's
conclusion. Plaintiffs second objection will therefore be
reviewed the R&R and fully considered Plaintiffs
objections, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs objections
are without merit, and the R&R (Doc. No. 27) should be
adopted and approved. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Complaint (Doc.
No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice under