United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION TO DENY DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND
DENYING DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO THE REPORT AND
T. FOWLKES, JR. United States District Judge.
the Court is Defendant Postmaster General of the United
States Postal Service, Megan Brennan's Motion to Dismiss,
which was filed on May 1, 2019. (ECF No. 11.) Pursuant to
Administrative Order 2013-05, this case, including
Defendant's Motion, was referred to the Magistrate Judge
for management of all pretrial matters. Plaintiff Robert
Herron filed a response to Defendant's Motion on May 30,
2019. (ECF No. 16.) The Magistrate Judge entered a Report and
Recommendation on September 12, 2019, suggesting that this
Court deny Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 17.)
Defendant filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation
on September 27, 2019. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff did not file
any objections or a response to Defendant's objection.
following reasons, the Court finds that the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation should be ADOPTED and
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss DENIED.
Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge provides, and
this Court adopts and incorporates, proposed findings of fact
in this case. (ECF No. 17, 1-2.)
passed 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) “to relieve some of the
burden on the federal courts by permitting the assignment of
certain district court duties to magistrates.”
United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir.
2001). Pursuant to the provision, magistrate judges may hear
and determine any pretrial matter pending before the Court,
except various dispositive motions. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A). Regarding those excepted dispositive motions,
magistrate judges may still hear and submit to the district
court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for
disposition. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Upon hearing a
pending matter, “the magistrate judge must enter a
recommended disposition, including, if appropriate, proposed
findings of fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(1); see also
Baker v. Peterson, 67 Fed.Appx. 308, 310 (6th Cir.
2003). Any party who disagrees with a magistrate's
proposed findings and recommendation may file written
objections to the report and recommendation. Fed.R.Civ.P.
standard of review that is applied by the district court
depends on the nature of the matter considered by the
magistrate judge. See Baker, 67 Fed.Appx. at 310
(citations omitted) (“A district court normally applies
a ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to law' standard
of review for nondispositive preliminary measures. A district
court must review dispositive motions under the de
novo standard.”). Upon review of the evidence, the
district court may accept, reject, or modify the proposed
findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge.
Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 47 F.Supp.3d 665, 674 (W.D.
Tenn. 2014); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The court “may also receive further evidence or
recommit the matter to the [m]agistrate [j]udge with
instructions.” Moses v. Gardner, No.
2:14-cv-2706-SHL-dkv, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29701, at *3
(W.D. Tenn. Mar. 11, 2015). A district court is not required
to review any aspect of a magistrate judge's report and
recommendation that is not objected to by either party,
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 106 S.Ct. 466,
472, 88 L.Ed. 435 (1985), and a district judge should adopt
the findings and rulings of a magistrate judge to which no
specific objection is filed. Brown, 47 F.Supp.3d at
alleges that while employed at the Ida B. Wells United States
Post Office in Holly Springs, Mississippi, he was subject to
unequal terms and conditions of employment on the basis of
color (Black), race (African American), and gender (Male),
and that he was subject to unlawful retaliation, all in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title
VII”). (ECF No. 1.) Specifically, Plaintiff claims that
Defendant gave another employee the opportunity to obtain
additional work hours but did not give Plaintiff those same
opportunities because of his race, color, and gender.
(Id.) Plaintiff also alleges that he suffered
relation because of his involvement in a prior union
Jurisdiction & Venue
initial matter, Defendant did not object to the Magistrate
Judge's recommendations regarding jurisdiction or venue.
Thus, it is unnecessary to review those portions of the
report. Arn, 474 U.S. at 150. However, the Court
observes that, in her Motion, Defendant offers two reasons
why this case should be dismissed. First, Defendant argues
that none of the conduct or acts alleged by Plaintiff took
place in Tennessee. (ECF No. 11-1, 2.) Defendant then asserts
that it is “unreasonable” for the Court to
exercise jurisdiction over this case when the alleged conduct
arose in the Northern District of Mississippi. (Id.
at 1, 3.) Defendant's second argument is similar to her
first: since no alleged acts or conduct arose in Tennessee,
the case should be dismissed for improper venue.
(Id. at 3.)
the Magistrate Judge concluded that this Court has personal
jurisdiction over Defendants because USPS maintains postal
service operations throughout the state of Tennessee. Thus,
because USPS has continuous and systematic contact with the
State of Tennessee, general jurisdiction is established. (ECF
No. 17, 3-4) (citing Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428
F.3d 605, 615 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that “[g]eneral
jurisdiction exists when a defendant's contacts with the
forum state are of such a continuous and systematic nature
that the state may exercise personal jurisdiction over the
defendant even if the action is unrelated to the
defendant's contacts with the state”) (internal
quotations and citation omitted)). Additionally, the
Magistrate Judge concluded that the Western District of
Tennessee is a proper venue for this case because the
Plaintiff resides here. (citing 28 U.S.C. §
these reasons, the Court agrees with and adopts the
Magistrate Judge's conclusion that this Court has
jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim and is a proper venue
for its adjudication. As a result, ...