Julie Pereira v. City of Lakeland, Tennessee, and Katrina Shields

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION ______________________________________________________________________________

JULIE PEREIRA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:24-cv-2380-MSN-atc JURY DEMAND

CITY OF LAKELAND, TENNESSEE, and KATRINA SHIELDS,

Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ______________________________________________________________________________

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 39, “Report”) entered on January 12, 2026. The Report recommends that Plaintiff Julie Pereira’s Motion to Enforce Court Order, for Sanctions, and Costs and Fees (ECF No. 22) be denied. 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 F. App’x 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 Report was entered on January 12, 2026, and all parties received electronic service that same day. The Report informed the parties that they could file objections within 14 days and that failure to file objections within that 14 days may constitute waiver/forfeiture of any objections, exceptions, and further appeal. To date, no objections to the Report have been filed, and the 14 days for doing so have passed. The Court has reviewed the Report for clear error and found none. Therefore, the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 39) is ADOPTED in its entirety, and Plaintiff Julie Pereira’s Motion to Enforce Court Order, for Sanctions, and Costs and Fees (ECF No. 22) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 30th day of January, 2026. s/ Mark S. Norris MARK S. NORRIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE