Opinion
No. 13-2502
12-02-2013
Sandra Rena Sullivan, Plaintiff, v. MATA; City of Memphis; MATA Employees; Sean Jay-Z Carter; Beyonce Gisell Carter Knowles; and Illuminati, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's July 23, 2013 Report and Recommendation (the "Report") to dismiss Plaintiff Sandra Rena Sullivan's ("Sullivan") in forma pauperis Complaint. (Report, ECF No. 6.) Sullivan has not objected to the Report and the time to do so has passed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) ("Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of the Magistrate Judge's Report], any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by the rules of the court."). The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge and DISMISSES the Complaint.
The court is required to screen in forma pauperis complaints and to dismiss any complaint, or any portion thereof, if the action (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to alleviate 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)). "A district judge must determine de novo any part of a magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). After reviewing the evidence, the court is free to accept, reject, or modify the proposed findings or recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 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. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). The district court should adopt the findings and rulings of the Magistrate Judge to which no specific objection is filed. Id. at 151.
Sullivan has not objected to the Report and the time do so has passed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). Because Sullivan has failed to object, Arn counsels the Court to adopt the Report in its entirety. Id. Adopting the Report is consistent with the policies underlying § 636, specifically judicial economy and protecting against the "functions of the district court [being] effectively duplicated as both the magistrate and the district court perform identical tasks." Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991).
For the foregoing reasons, the Report is ADOPTED and Plaintiffs' Complaint is DISMISSED.
______________________
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE