Jones v. Fed. Express

Full title: ANGELA V. JONES, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

Date published: Jun 17, 2013

No. 12-2792-STA-tmp (W.D. Tenn. Jun. 17, 2013)

Opinion

No. 12-2792-STA-tmp

06-17-2013

ANGELA V. JONES, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS, Defendant.

S. THOMAS ANDERSON

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter comes to the Court on the Report and Recommendation (D.E. # 6) of the United States Magistrate Judge filed May 15, 2013. Plaintiff Angela V. Jones ("Jones") filed a Motion (D.E. # 7) on May 30, 2013, which the Court construes as an objection to the Report and Recommendation. For the reasons laid out herein, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and DISMISSES Jones' suit against Defendant Federal Express ("FedEx").

The district courts may refer dispositive matters to a magistrate judge for issuance of a report and recommendation.¹ A party may file objections to the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days of service of the magistrate judge's report.² A district court reviews any portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendations to which a party timely objects de novo. ³However, a party objecting to the magistrate judge's report and recommendations must identify specific concerns, as a court will consider a general objection a failure to object at all.⁴

1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

2 Id.

3 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C); United States v. Worley, 193 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 1999).

4 McCready v. Kamminga, 113 F. App'x 47, 49 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)).

Jones' objections consist of nothing more than assertions that she intended to "motion the court in regards to the information that [she] filed," and that she "had a lot going on lately," as reasons for her failure to serve FedEx.⁵ Jones makes no specific objection to any error of law or fact in the Report and Recommendation. On a review of the record, it appears the Court has made every effort to allow Jones to effectuate service and avoid dismissal of her case.⁶ Both the 120 days allowed for service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and the additional time granted by this Court are long past. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and DISMISSES Jones' suit against FedEx.

5 Pl.'s Motion, D.E. # 7.

6 See Order to Issue and Effect Service of Process, D.E. # 3 (directing Jones to serve FedEx by February 27, 2013); Order to Show Cause, D.E. # 5 (directing Jones to show cause by April 23, 2013, why she had not complied with the Order to Issue and Effect Service of Process and warning that a failure to show cause could result in dismissal of her case).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S. THOMAS ANDERSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE