Courts v. Walden Security, No. 3:2010cv01157 - Document 66 (M.D. Tenn. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER: For the reasons expressed herein, the plaintiff's Objection is OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and made the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this court. For the reasons expressed therein, it is hereby ORDERE D that the defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment 39 is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This Order will constitute the final judgment in this case. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 5/29/12. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(tmw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Courts v. Walden Security Doc. 66 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION RONALD COURTS, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. WALDEN SECURITY, Defendant. Civil No. 3:10-1157 Judge Trauger Magistrate Judge Bryant ORDER On April 17, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 55), to which the plaintiff filed an Objection (Docket No. 61), to which the defendant filed a Response (Docket No. 63). When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation regarding a dispositive pretrial matter, the district court must review de novo any portion of the report and recommendation to which a specific objection is made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001); Massey v. City of Ferndale, 7 F.3d 506, 510 (6th Cir. 1993). Objections must be specific; an objection to the report in general is not sufficient, and will result in waiver of further review. See Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995). The Objection filed by the plaintiff can only be considered a general objection to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and does not identify any factual or legal reason why the court should reject the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which is based upon thorough 1 Dockets.Justia.com and competent analysis of the issues. The plaintiff’s Objection appears to simply re-argue the issues before the Magistrate Judge, rather than object to specific findings made by him. For the reasons expressed herein, the plaintiff’s Objection is OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and made the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this court. For the reasons expressed therein, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment (Docket No. 39) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This Order will constitute the final judgment in this case. It is so ORDERED. Enter this 29th day of May 2012. ________________________________ ALETA A. TRAUGER U.S. District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
