United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. PARKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
in forma pauperis, Plaintiff Dawna Young moves to amend her
complaint to bring employment-related and constitutional
claims against Defendants FedEx Employees Credit Association
(“FECA”), City of Memphis, Tennessee (“City
of Memphis”), and Shelby County, Tennessee
(“Shelby County”). Plaintiff has attached her
amended complaint to the motion. (ECF No. 17-1; ECF No.
17-2.) In response, FECA moved for judgment on the pleadings
or summary judgment. (ECF No. 19.)
Magistrate Court issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) recommending that the Court grant the
motion to amend the complaint. (ECF No. 30.) The Magistrate
Court also recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's
amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B),
which enables the Court to “dismiss [a] case at any
time if [it] determines that the . . . the action . . . fails
to state a claim on which relief may be granted.”
(Id.) Plaintiff objected to the R&R. (ECF No.
32.) For the reasons below, the Court
OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections and
ADOPTS the Magistrate Court's R&R.
The Court thus DISMISSES as moot FECA's
motion for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment.
following standards apply to this case.
Review of the R&R
reviewing a Report and Recommendation from the Magistrate
[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the
court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The
judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the
matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b); accord Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). After conducting a de novo review, a district court
need not articulate all the reasons it rejects a party's
objections. See Tuggle v. Seabold, 806 F.2d 87, 92
(6th Cir. 1986). Nor does it have to review under a de novo
standard the portions of the R&R that the parties did not
properly object. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150
(1985). A party objecting to the R&R must do so with
enough specificity “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) (citing Howard v. Sec 'y of
Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir.
1991)). Also, a party cannot “raise at the district
court stage new arguments or issues that were not presented
to the magistrate [court]” absent compelling reasons.
Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895, 902 n.1 (6th
Cir. 2000) (citing United States v. Waters, 158 F.3d
93, 936 (6th Cir. 1998)).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court “shall dismiss
[a] case at any time if [it] determines that . . . the action
. . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted.” That said, “[p]ro se complaints are
held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers and should therefore be liberally
construed.” Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380,
383 (6th Cir. 2011) (quotations omitted).
determine if Plaintiff's amended complaint states a claim
on which relief may be granted, the Court must turn to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for guidance. Under
Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must “construe the complaint
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept its
allegations as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in
favor of the plaintiff.” DIRECTV, Inc. v.
Treesh, 487 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir. 2007).
this standard, the Court may reject legal conclusions or
unwarranted factual inferences. Hananiya v. City of
Memphis, 252 F.Supp.2d 607, 610 (W.D. Tenn. 2003)
(citing Lewis v. ACB Business Servs., Inc., 135 F.3d
389, 405 (6th Cir. 1998)). The Sixth Circuit has noted
“[a] complaint should only be dismissed if it is clear
to the court that ‘no relief could be granted under any
set of facts that could be proved consistent with the
allegations.'” Id. (quoting
Trzebuckowski v. City of Cleveland, 319 F.3d 853,
855 (6th Cir. 2003)).
Court should also consider the allegations in Plaintiff's
amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8(a)(2). Under Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” This standard does
not require “detailed factual allegations, ” but
it does require more than “labels and
conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 681 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see also
Reilly v. Vadlamudi, 680 F.3d 617, 622 (6th Cir. 2012).
Plaintiff must allege facts that are enough “to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level” and to
“state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, at 555, 570.
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, at
Court will first address the Magistrate Court's proposed
factual findings here. Plaintiff makes three general factual
objections to the R&R. First, Plaintiff appears to submit
that the R&R failed to address the allegation that she
suffered work-related “harassment and
discrimination” before March 2017. (ECF No. 32 at
PageID 210.) Plaintiff also appears to suggest that the
R&R failed to address the allegation that she suffered
discrimination “pursuant to [Plaintiff's] race,
unequal terms and conditions of employment and marital
Court rejects Plaintiff's objections because the R&R
covered these allegations. The R&R noted that Plaintiff
allegedly “began to experience discrimination based on
her marital status in February 2017.” (ECF No. 30 at
PageID 189-190.) It also noted that Plaintiff
“complain[ed] of unequal terms and conditions of
employment and retaliation.” (Id. at PageID
Plaintiff appears to suggest that the R&R did not address
her “allegations of entries into [Plaintiff's]
domicile on several occasions” after she filed her
complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”). (ECF No. 32 at PageID 210.) Plaintiff
also appears to suggest that the R&R overlooked the
interactions she had with the Memphis Police Department that
underpin her conspiracy allegations. (Id.) Finally,
Plaintiff seems to indicate that the Magistrate Court failed
to discuss her “post-employment” allegations that
show “strong ...