Opinion
2:19-cv-2874-MSN-cgc
04-08-2022
VERA MAE MORRIS and CHRISTOPHER E. WILKERSON, Plaintiffs, v. OFFICER BURTON and OFFICER WEBB, CITY OF MEMPHIS POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
MARK S. NORRIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before the Court is the Chief Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on Motion for Sanctions (“Report”) entered on March 21, 2022. (ECF No. 77.) The Report recommends that the Motion for Sanctions filed by Defendants Officer Burton and Officer Webb against Plaintiffs Vera Morris and Christopher Wilkerson be granted and Plaintiffs' case be dismissed with prejudice. (See id.) Plaintiffs and Defendants had 14 days to submit objections to the Report. Fourteen days have passed, and neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants have submitted any objections to the Report.
Congress 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.
Objections 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). A 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. 2017).
The Chief Magistrate Judge entered his Report on March 21, 2022. (ECF No. 77.) To date, neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants have submitted objections to the Report's findings or recommendations, and the deadline for doing so has expired. The Court has reviewed the Report for clear error and finds none. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety and GRANTS Defendants Burton and Webb's Motion for Sanctions. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice, and Plaintiff Wilkerson is ORDERED to pay $171.50 to Defendants due to Plaintiff Wilkerson's failure to appear for his depositions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.