United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR SUA
S. NORRIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation for Sua Sponte Dismissal submitted
November 22, 2019 (“Report”). (ECF No. 7.) The
Report recommends that Plaintiff's pro se
Complaint alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (EFC No. 1) (“Complaint”) be
dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). (ECF No. 7 at PageID 21.) On December 12, 2019,
Plaintiff filed an objection to the Report. (ECF No. 8.) For
the reasons set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the Report, and
Plaintiff's Complaint is 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).
to identify specific concerns with a magistrate judge's
report results in treatment of a party's objections as a
general objection to the entire magistrate judge's
report. A general objection is considered the equivalent of
failing to object entirely.” McCready v.
Kamminga, 113 Fed.Appx. 47, 49 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing
Howard, 932 F.2d at. 509). “[T]he district
court need not provide de novo review where the
objections are ‘[f]rivolous, conclusive or
general.'” Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636,
637 (6th Cir. 1986) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright,
677 F.2d 404, 410 n. 8 (5th Cir. 1982)).
initial matter, Plaintiff filed his objection to the Report
three days after the deadline to object had past.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Notwithstanding
the untimely filing of Plaintiff's objection, and
considering Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court
elects to address the substance of Plaintiff's objections
to the Report. See Hunger v. Leininger, 15 F.3d 664,
668 (7th Cir. 1994) (permitting a district court judge to
decline review of late-filed objections only if the filing is
“egregiously late” and causes
“prejudice” to the parties).
Plaintiff's objection document makes no specific
objections to the Magistrate Judges's findings of fact
and law and thus must be construed as a general objection to
the Report. As stated above, general objections are not
sufficient and result in waiver of further review.
Moore's objection document 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. Instead, Moore alleges additional facts in his
objection document in an attempt to remedy the pleading
deficiencies pointed out in the Report. (ECF No. 8 at PageID
33-34.) Plaintiff's objection thus is not sufficiently
specific to require de novo review.
the gist of Plaintiff's objection document attempts to
amend his original Complaint, the Court also considers
Plaintiff's objection as a motion to amend under Rule 15
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court finds
Plaintiff's motion to amend is not well-taken because
Plaintiff's deadline to amend as a matter of course has
expired, Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1), and Plaintiff has not
obtained either consent from Defendant nor leave from the
Court to file an amended pleading. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2).
Additionally, a plaintiff proceeding in forma
pauperis may not amend his pleadings to escape sua
sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Zindler v. Rogers, 477 Fed.Appx. 381, 382 (6th Cir.
2012) (citing Benson v. O'Brian, 179 F.3d 1014,
1016 (6th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff's motion to amend must
therefore be DENIED.
Plaintiff has no substantive objection to the Report, the
Court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendations should
be accepted. In addition, the Court has reviewed the Report
for clear error and finds none.
the Court ADOPTS the Report (ECF No. 7) and DISMISSES this
action WITH PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. §