United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, OVERRULING
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
AMEND COMPLAINT, AND CERTIFYING THAT AN APPEAL WOULD NOT BE
TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH
S. NORRIS, UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, filed July
1, 2019. (ECF No. 10.) The report recommends that the
complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as being frivolous
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), as well as for
failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and,
specifically, because it is “incomprehensible,
irrational and incredible. The filing does not assert any
coherent claim against any person or entity under any
colorable legal theory.” (Id. at PageID 60.)
Plaintiff filed a response on July 15, 2019. (ECF No. 11.)
Although not labeled as an objection to the Magistrate
Judge's report and recommendation, the Court will treat
it as such and refer to the response as an objection.
following reasons, Plaintiff's objection is
OVERRULED. The report is
ADOPTED. All of Plaintiff's claims in
this matter are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
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). For 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 Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 150 (1985). The district court should adopt the
magistrate judge's findings and rulings to which no
specific objection is filed. See Id. at 151.
to any part of a Magistrate Judge's disposition
“must be clear enough to enable the district court to
discern those issues that are dispositive and
contentious.” Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373,
380 (6th Cir. 1995); see also Arn, 474 U.S. at 147
(stating that the purpose of the rule is to “focus
attention on those issues . . . that are at the heart of the
parties' dispute.”). Each objection to the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation should include how the
analysis is wrong, why it was wrong and how de novo
review will obtain a different result on that particular
issue. Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human
Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991).
general objection, or one that merely restates the arguments
previously presented and addressed by the Magistrate Judge,
does not sufficiently identify alleged errors in the report
and recommendation. Id. When an objection reiterates
the arguments presented to the Magistrate Judge, the report
and recommendation should be reviewed for clear error.
Verdone v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No.
16-CV-14178, 2018 WL 1516918, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 28,
2018) (citing Ramirez v. United States, 898
F.Supp.2d 659, 663 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)); accord Equal
Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Dolgencorp, LLC,
277 F.Supp.3d 932, 965 (E.D. Tenn. 2017).
Allen's objection to the report is no clearer than his
complaint. (See ECF No. 11 at PageID 63-64.) Allen's
objection does not explain how the report's analysis is
wrong, why it was wrong, or how de novo review would
result in a different conclusion. Allen merely reiterates
some of the facts previously presented in his complaint and
addressed by the Magistrate Judge. See Howard, 932
F.2d at 509. Because Allen's objection reiterates the
“claims” presented to the Magistrate Judge, the
Court may review the report for clear error. See
Verdone, 2018 WL 1516918, at *2.
Court has reviewed the report for clear error and finds none.
Accordingly, Allen's objection is
filed a letter with the Court on March 8, 2019, stating that
he had “recently obtained additional evidence, to
support [his] civil claim. . . . I am also making a request .
. . that this additional evidence be allowed to be submitted,
further substantiating my claim, as it is relevant
documentation.” (ECF No. 9 at PageID 55.) The Court
construes this as a request for leave to amend pursuant to
15(a) declares that leave to amend “shall be freely
given when justice so requires.” The Supreme Court has
held that leave to amend should normally be granted unless
there is some “apparent or declared reason” not
to allow the amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.
178, 182 (1962). One reason for not allowing an amendment is
that the amendment would be futile. Id. “A
proposed amendment is futile if the amendment could not
withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” Rose
v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 417, 420
(6th Cir. 2000) (citing Thiokol Corp. v. Dep't of
Treasury, State of Michigan, Revenue Div., 987 F.2d 376,
382-83 (6th Cir. 1993)).
Court finds that Allen's proposed amendment would be
futile. His current complaint and objection to the Magistrate
Judge's report are “incomprehensible” and do
not contain any “colorable legal theory.” (ECF
No. 10 at PageID 60.) Any evidence Allen wants to include to
“support [his] legal claim, ” (see ECF No. 9 at
PageID 55), is in vain because no viable legal claim is
present in his current complaint or objection. Additional
evidence could not support Allen's legal claim when no
comprehensible legal claim exists. Accordingly, Allen's
proposed amendment is futile because after amendment, the
Complaint could not withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss, and therefore, the request for leave to amend is
Magistrate Judge's report also recommends that the Court
certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any
appeal in this matter by Allen would not be taken in good
faith and that he not be allowed to proceed on appeal in
forma pauperis. For the same reasons that this Court is
adopting the report and recommendation, overruling
Allen's objection, and denying his request to amend his
complaint, this Court CERTIFIES that an