ANDERSON v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION

Case No. 3:16-cv-02720.

JEFFREY ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION d/b/a STARBUCKS and LAGASSIE PROPERTIES, LLC, Defendants.

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 12131
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 12131 Americans with Disabilities Act
Nature of Suit: 446 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other
Source: PACER


ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

DENISE PAGE HOOD, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Joe B. Brown's Report and Recommendation. [#18] Plaintiff Jeffrey Anderson, currently proceeding in pro per following the withdrawal of his counsel and Plaintiff's failure to obtain new counsel, filed this action on October 13, 2016, alleging that Defendants violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court grant dismiss Plaintiff's cause of action, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute and obey Court orders. Neither party filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation.

Judicial review of the Commissioner's decision is limited in scope to determining whether the Commissioner employed the proper legal criteria in reaching his conclusion. Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383 (6th Cir. 1984). The credibility findings of an administrative law judge ("ALJ") must not be discarded lightly and should be accorded great deference. Hardaway v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 823 F.2d 922, 928 (6th Cir. 1987). A district court's review of an ALJ's decision is not a de novo review. The district court may not resolve conflicts in the evidence nor decide questions of credibility. Garner, 745 F.2d at 397. The decision of the Commissioner must be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence, even if the record might support a contrary decision or if the district court arrives at a different conclusion. Smith v. Secretary of HHS, 893 F.2d 106, 108 (6th Cir. 1984); Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986).

The Court has had an opportunity to review this matter and finds that the Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusions for the proper reasons. Finding no error in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Furthermore, as neither party has raised an objection to the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the parties have waived any further objections to the Report and Recommendation. Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987) (a party's failure to file any objections waives his or her right to further appeal); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

For the reasons stated above,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 18, filed March 21, 2017] is ADOPTED as this Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases