United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
S. NORRIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is the Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham's (ECF No.
42) Report and Recommendation (“Report”) on
Defendant Charles Jones's Motion to Dismiss Counts 2, 3,
and 4 of the Indictment (“Motion to Dismiss”)
(ECF No. 31). The Report recommends that the Court deny Mr.
Jones's Motion. (ECF No. 42.) Mr. Jones filed an
Objection to the Report on May 20, 2019
(“Objection”). (ECF No. 43.) The Government
timely responded to Mr. Jones's Objection on June 4,
2019. (ECF No. 46.) Mr. Jones filed a Reply to the
Government's Response on June 18, 2019. (ECF No. 52.) For
the following reasons, Mr. Jones's Objection is
OVERRULED. The Report is
ADOPTED and Mr. Jones's Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 31) is DENIED.
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. See 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)); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n
v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 277 F.Supp.3d 932, 965 (E.D. Tenn.
Mr. Jones objects to the Magistrate Judge's finding that
counts 2-4 in the indictment sufficiently allege
venue. (ECF No. 43 PageID 295-96.) As noted in
the Report, counts 2-4 in the indictment read as follows:
On or about February 13, 2014, in the Western District of
Tennessee and elsewhere,
CHARLES A. "CHUCK" JONES
being aided and abetted by A.J., did, for the purpose of
executing and attempting to execute the aforesaid scheme and
artifice to defraud, and to obtain money by means of
materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations,
and promises, knowingly cause to be transmitted by means of
wire and radio communication in interstate commerce, writing,
signs, signals, pictures and sounds, specifically a FCC Form
486 containing a false and fraudulent representation and
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, 1343.
. . . On or about March 15, 2014, in the Western District of