Tankesly Jr v. Aramark Services, Inc.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE COLUMBIA DIVISION

CALVIN TANKESLY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) NO. 1:20-cv-00017 ) ARAMARK SERVICES, INC. et al., ) JUDGE CAMPBELL ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE HOLMES Defendants. )

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 42), which was filed on April 9, 2021. Through the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant Kevin Genovese’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 30). Plaintiff filed an objection (Doc. No. 45) and Defendant filed a Reply (Doc. No. 46). For the reasons discussed below, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation will be adopted and approved. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.02, a district court reviews de novo any portion of a report and recommendation to which a specific objection is made. United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001). General or conclusory objections are insufficient. See Zimmerman v. Cason, 354 F. Appx. 228, 230 (6th Cir. 2009). Thus, “only those specific objections to the magistrate’s report made to the district court will be preserved for appellate review.” Id. (quoting Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987)). In conducting the review, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted because she found that Plaintiff failed to allege facts showing conduct by Defendant that would support a claim of personal liability under Section 1983 against him. Plaintiff's objection (Doc. No. 45) does not directly challenge the reasoning of the Report and Recommendation. Instead, Plaintiff appears to simply re-state facts and arguments he previously made in opposition to Defendant’s motion and the Magistrate Judge already considered in the Report and Recommendation. Thus, Plaintiff's objection does not provide a basis to reject or modify the Report and Recommendation. See VanDiver v. Martin, 304 F. Supp. 2d 934, 937 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (“An ‘objection’ that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate's suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an ‘objection’ as that term is used in this context.”). Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and considered Plaintiffs objection, the Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 42) should be adopted and approved. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 30) is GRANTED. It is so ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE