Williamson v. Department of the Navy et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
MARCUS VAN WILLIAMSON,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:26-cv-01010-JDB-jay
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION,
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL,
AND
DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER AS MOOT
On January 16, 2026, the pro se Plaintiff, Marcus Van Williamson, filed a complaint for
declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act against the
Defendants, the Department of the Navy, the Board of Correction of Naval Records, and the
Secretary of the Navy. (Docket Entry ("D.E.") 1.) On April 24, 2026, Defendants moved for
partial dismissal of the complaint. (D.E. 9.) The matter was referred to the United States
magistrate judge for management of all pretrial proceedings in accordance with Administrative
Order 2013-05. On September 2, 2026, Judge Jon A. York entered a report and recommendation
(the “R&R”) recommending that the motion be granted. (D.E. 18.) Plaintiff has filed objections
to the R&R (D.E. 20, 21, 22, 27), to which Defendants have responded (D.E. 28). Defendants
have also filed a motion to reconsider the Court’s September 24, 2026, order granting Plaintiff
leave to file supplemental materials (D.E. 29), to which Plaintiff has responded (D.E. 30).
Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to “relieve some of the burden on the federal courts by
permitting the assignment of certain district court duties to magistrate[ judges].” United States v.
Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 869-70
Case 1:26-cv-01010-JDB-jay Document 31 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID
<pageID>

2
(1989)). Upon the filing of objections to a report and recommendation entered by a magistrate
judge, the district judge is to “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that
has been properly objected to,” and “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition;
receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), LR 72.1(g)(2).
The Court has reviewed the R&R, Plaintiff’s objections, Defendants’ response, the
applicable law, and all relevant portions of the record. Upon a thorough de novo review thereof,
the Court determines that the objections are OVERRULED, the R&R is ADOPTED, and the
Defendants’ motion for partial dismissal is GRANTED. See Abousamra v. Kijakazi, 656 F. Supp.
3d 701, 705 (E.D. Mich. 2023) (“If the court will adopt the R&R, then it may simply state that it
engaged in a de novo review of the record and adopts the R&R”) (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted); see also 12 Wright & Miller’s Federal Practice & Procedure § 3070.2 (3d ed.)
(update Apr. 2026).
Further, the Defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order granting Plaintiff
leave to file supplemental materials is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of October 2026.
s/ J. DANIEL BREEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-01010-JDB-jay Document 31 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID
<pageID>